Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

MEMBER SWORN.

A Member took and subscribed the Oath.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Evesham and Pershore Joint Hospital District) Bill,

Reported, without Amendment.

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Port of Manchester) Bill,

Reported, without Amendment.

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

SPECIAL AREAS.

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: asked the Minister of Labour whether he can make any further statement as to the proposals of His Majesty's Government with regard to the distressed areas?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Neath (Sir W. Jenkins) on 19th January.

Mr. Adams: May we expect legislation at an early date?

Mr. Brown: At an early date.

Mr. Adams: Pending that legislation, will the Government adhere more literally to their declared policy of putting new arms factories in these areas?

Mr. Brown: I cannot add to the Prime Minister's answer.

ASSISTANCE.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Labour whether the Unemployment

Assistance Board made any reductions in payments to applicants for assistance before 25th December, 1936; and whether there is a national uniform administration of the new Regulations being applied?

Mr. E. Brown: As regards the first part of the question, I am informed by the Board that no reduction in allowances were made before 25th December in consequence of the new Regulations. Such adjustments as were made were due to changes of circumstances known to affect the applications. As regards the second part of the question, the Regulations are administered on a uniform basis throughout the country, with due regard, of course, to the circumstances of the individual case, but subject to local adjustments in the light of recommendations from advisory committees on such matters as rent, rural conditions, and the transition to the new Regulations.

Mr. Logan: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the Liverpool Public Assistance and General Purposes Sub-committee recommended that, in respect of the week which includes the date of the Coronation, relief shall be increased by 3s. to each adult and 2s. in respect of each child; what action he intends to take; and what allowances, if any, he is prepared to recommend to be given to the unemployed in Coronation week?

Mr. Brown: As regards the first two parts of the question, this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, but I would refer the hon. Member to the Circular, 1579, which has already been issued to the local authorities on this matter. As regards the third part of the question, the matter is under consideration, and I will make a statement when a decision has been reached.

Mr. Logan: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I say that I have been studying the matter and am aware of the position? I am asking the Minister whether he is willing to give to the unemployed the concession which the Public Assistance Committee of Liverpool are desirous of giving to those who are recipients of Poor Law relief? Is there any legitimate reason why it should not be given?

Mr. Brown: Perhaps the hon. Member will await the decision and then put a


question down, after he has seen whether or not the decision is in the direction that he desires.

Mr. Logan: Is there any reason why one should wait when one can get an answer now?

UNEMPLOYMENT FUND.

Mr. E. Smith: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will arrange with the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee that they will receive evidence from all parties represented in the House before the committee make their recommendations about the disposable surplus of the funds?

Mr. E. Brown: On 10th November last the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee gave notice, as required by Statute, of their intention to make a report upon the financial condition of the Unemployment Fund at the end of the year 1936, and at the same time they invited representations. The committee have already received evidence on behalf of employers and workpeople, and they inform me that, until their report is signed, they will be glad to receive representations from Members of the House or from other sources. I understand, however, that the report is in an advanced stage of preparation, and that the committee hope to sign it early in February. Any representation to the committee upon the subject of their report should, therefore, be made without delay.

HOTEL AND CATERING TRADES.

Mr. Rostron Duckworth: asked the Minister of Labour whether any special arrangements are being made to supply the anticipated shortage of hotel and restaurant employés that will occur during the Coronation period from British sources; and to what extent it will be necessary to permit the entry of foreign staff?

Mr. E. Brown: The Ministry of Labour Employment Exchanges, including the specialised hotel and catering trades exchange, will take all possible steps to meet demands made to them by hotels and restaurants requiring additional staff during the Coronation period, and inquiries are in progress with a view to estimating the number of suitable employés likely to be available in this country. In the circumstances it is impossible to say at this stage how far,

if at all, the admission of foreign staff will be necessary.

Mr. Paling: Does the Minister keep an eye on the question of the prices that are charged?

Mr. Brown: That is not a matter for the Employment Exchange.

Mr. Day: Will reciprocal terms be asked for British people going to the Continent?

Mr. Brown: This is for the Coronation period, and, of course, no question of reciprocity arises there.

PARK ROYAL TRAINING CENTRE.

Dr. Leech: asked the Minister of Labour whether a full complement of young unemployed persons is being transferred from South Wales and the North-East Coast for training at the Park Royal cookery school; and, if Park Royal is not being fully used, will he set up training schools in South Wales, Durham, and Cumberland, and arrange for unemployed persons to be trained locally for the vacancies awaiting them in the catering trades and household services in the South of England?

Mr. E. Brown: The class at the Park Royal training centre to which my hon. Friend refers is for waiters, not cooks. The class is at present full, and there is a waiting list. Not all the applicants come from the depressed areas, including South Wales and the North-East Coast, but preference is given to men from such areas. I do not at present contemplate establishing an additional training centre of this kind.

STATISTICS.

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: asked the Minister of Labour the number of applicants who received unemployment benefit in the administrative county of Durham, the county boroughs of Sunderland, Gateshead, and South Shields, each year from 1931 to 1936; and the amount paid to the unemployed in these areas during the same period?

Mr. E. Brown: I am having such information as is available extracted, and will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as possible.

SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY.

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the criticisms of the Shipbuilders' Federation on the presentation of the unemployment


figures in the shipbuilding industry; and what steps he proposes to take to initiate a more satisfactory system?

Mr. E. Brown: I presume that the reference is to certain criticisms contained in a pamphlet issued by the President of the Shipbuilding Employers' Federation for 1935–36. These criticisms appear to be based on a misapprehension of the meaning of the unemployment statistics. These statistics give the total number of unemployed persons, within certain limits of age, registered at the Employment Exchanges at periodical dates, and are analysed according to the industries in which these persons were previously employed. Owing principally to the long duration of unemployment, many of the persons recorded as unemployed in the shipbuilding industry are not immediately available for effective work in the yards, but it is unfortunately not correct to suggest, as the pamphlet does, that the high figure of unemployment is on that account merely a nominal one. The question of the suitability of the registered unemployed for specific employment is, however, of great importance, and is constantly borne in mind. The practical requirement is to take all possible measures for utilising the available labour supply to the best advantage for the purpose of meeting the increasing demands upon the industry, and the full co-operation of my Department in this direction may be assumed.

Miss Ward: Am I to understand from the Minister's statement that the difference between skilled and unskilled labour is kept at the Ministry of Labour itself, and is not available to the Employment Exchange?

Mr. Brown: It is not included in the ordinary statistics.

DOMESTIC TRAINING.

Captain Ramsay: asked the Minister of Labour whether the Commissioner for the Special Areas has reported the result of his own and local efforts to train for household services and transfer juveniles to fill vacancies around London in residences where they would receive the ruling rates of wages and be properly looked after by their employers; and, if the Commissioner has failed, will he advertise in the South of Scotland and North of England that training facilities

for houshold employment and transfer under official supervision await suitable unemployed applicants?

Mr. E. Brown: Training for domestic service is carried out by the Central Committee on women's training and by certain other organisations assisted by grants from my Department and not by the Special Commissioner directly. There are 37 of these centres, residential or nonresidential, at present being operated by the Central Committee, and in addition there are two schemes provided by voluntary organisations where men are trained for domestic service. Considerable difficulty is being experienced in obtaining recruits for domestic training, but I can assure my hon. Friend that every effort is made by means of personal interview, poster display and distribution of leaflets to bring to the notice of suitable applicants and their parents in the Special Areas and elsewhere, the facilities for the training for domestic employment and transfer to other parts of the country.

AGED MINERS.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: asked the Minister of Labour the number of miners of 60 years of age and over; how many are employed; and how many are unemployed?

Mr. E. Brown: I regret that statistics giving the information desired are not available.

Mr. Taylor: The Department recently issued several tables dealing with ages, and further, they can tell an insured worker on the day before he is 65.

Mr. Brown: That is a different issue. The hon. Member asked for a wide statement. I have not the available information.

Mr. E. J. Williams: Is it not possible to get these figures?

Mr. Brown: Not in this form.

Mr. George Griffiths: If the Minister has not got them how is it that the P.E.P. Association across the road can get them any day they like?

Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there was in the last Ministry of Labour Gazette a whole series of figures dealing with the periods


of those out of work, the numbers out of work, the variations in each industry and the ages in the industry? Would not that material be gathered at the Employment Exchanges?

Mr. Brown: That is exactly what I was saying. The hon. Member has asked for a general statement in two ways. It is not possible to give that. I have always tried to meet particular points in particular cases.

TRANSFERENCE.

Major Procter: asked the Minister of Labour the number of families who have been transferred during 1936 from the Accrington Parliamentary division to other areas under the provisions of the Government's transference schemes?

Mr. E. Brown: Exact information is not available, but it appears that during the year 1936 approximately 120 families were assisted to remove from the Accrington Parliamentary division to other areas under the Department's industrial transference scheme.

Major Procter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is strong resentment in Lancashire against our skilled workers going to the South? Would it be possible for him to consult his colleagues with a view to getting factories transferred to places in Lancashire rather than to those districts where there is no unemployment?

Mr. Brown: That is always our desire, but there is also a strong feeling that work should be found for unemployed people.

SPECIAL AREAS BILL.

Mr. Batey: asked the Minister of Labour when the Special Areas Bill will be introduced?

Mr. E. Brown: I am not yet able to announce this date.

Mr. Batey: Has the right hon. Gentleman forgotten that he made a speech in which he promised this Bill in January, and we are now near the end of January. When are we going to get it? Does the Minister mean that we are not to get the Bill at all?

Mr. Brown: At an early date.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Can the right hon. Gentleman give some indication as to when he will be able to state the approximate date for the introduction of the Bill?

Mr. Brown: Not now.

ROYAL DOCKYARD EMPLOYES (PENSIONS).

Captain Plugge: asked the Minister of Labour whether the Unemployment Statutory Committee has yet reached any decision with regard to the representations made to them on behalf of workers in Admiralty dockyards who fall out of the unemployment insurance scheme on becoming established and whose pensions on retirement are less in amount than the rates of unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance for which they would otherwise have been qualified?

Mr. E. Brown: The unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee have not yet presented their report on the matter to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. I understand that they expect to be in a position to do so in the near future.

Captain Plugge: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in many cases the pensions of retired established dockyard employés are so small that they would be better off if they were without them and could qualify for unemployment benefit?

Mr. Brown: I do not think they would agree with that statement in the way in which my hon. and gallant Friend puts it, but, as he knows, this is one of the reasons for the inquiry by the committee.

BANK OFFICERS' GUILD (DISTRICT BANK).

Mr. E. J. Williams: asked the Minister of Labour (1), what action he has taken in the dispute between the District Bank and its staff;
(2) whether the District Bank have yet recognised bona fide collective bargaining with the Bank Officers' Guild as the national trade union representing the majority of its staff; and whether the intimidation instigated by the chief general manager of the District Bank, of which charges have been made by the Bank Officers' Guild, has ceased?

Mr. E. Brown: Following representations made to me by the Bank Officers' Guild I have been in communication with


the District Bank. I am not in a position to make any further comment at the present time, but I ought to say that the bank does not admit that there has been intimidation.

Mr. Williams: In view of the serious feeling that exists among the staff of the bank, would not the Minister agree that it would be advisable to conduct a ballot in order to find out exactly the feeling of the staff with regard to the Bank Officers' Guild, such as was conducted under the auspices of the Mines Department some time ago?

Mr. Brown: I think the House will agree that it would be improper for me to make any further comment on the matter.

Sir Joseph Nall: Is the procedure adopted by this bank any different from that of other banks?

Mr. Brown: We are dealing with a particular case. If the hon. Member will read the answer, he will see that, in the circumstances of the case, it would be better for me to make no further comment.

Mr. Rhys Davies: In view of the fact that the majority of the employés are desirous of being organised as members of this association, and in view of the fact that it is better for the relations between the bank and its staff that they should be properly organised, is it not possible to get the association recognised by the bank, and would not the Minister of Labour use his influence to that end?

Mr. Brown: I have no further comment to make.

HORSE-BREEDING.

Mr. Hall-Caine: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the increased surplus of totalisator funds recently disclosed, it will be possible during the current year to make increased grants for British horse-breeding; and, if so, to what extent?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. G. Lloyd): Out of £120,000 which will be available for distribution for the statutory purposes, my right hon. Friend has approved of a grant of £6,000 to the Hunters Improvement and National

Horse Breeding Society for stallion premiums in 1937, as compared with a grant of £5,000 in 1936, and also of a new grant of £300 to the National Pony Society for premiums for stallions of the breeds of ponies indigenous to this country. I understand that the Racecourse Betting Control Board have under consideration further proposals for assisting horse-breeding.

UNSKILLED LABOURERS, SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE (WAGES).

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Labour the present standard rate of wages for unskilled labourers in South Staffordshire?

Mr. E. Brown: The standard rates of wages for unskilled labourers in South Staffordshire vary as between different industries and different localities. I am sending the hon. Member a statement giving the available information.

Mr. Mander: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT, in view of the fact that in many cases the standard rates are not being paid?

Mr. Brown: I shall be glad to do that if the hon. Member desires it.

Mr. Hicks: Will the Minister take the resonsibility of deciding what is a proper rate of payment?

Mr. Brown: I content myself with answering the question and circulating the answer.

Following is the statement:

Minimum Rates of Wages of Unskilled Labourers in South Staffordshire.

The standard rates of wages for unskilled labourers vary in different industries and, in some cases, for different areas within the same industry. The attached table shows the minimum time rates of wages fixed by collective agreements between organisations of employers and workpeople for unskilled workmen in certain important industries in which such agreements specifically relate to localities in South Staffordshire. In certain other industries there are agreements which fix minimum rates of wages without specifying the areas to which they relate. The rates fixed by such agreements will be applicable in


South Staffordshire in so far as there are employers located in that area who are affiliated to the employers' organisations concerned. The minimum rates of wages fixed under the Trade Boards Acts

Time Rates of Wages agreed upon by Organisations of Employers and Workpeople for Unskilled Workmen employed in certain industries in South Staffordshire.*


Industry and Class of Worker.
District.
Rate of Wages.
Hours of Labour.
Parties to the Agreement.


Agriculture—

Per week.
Per week.



Ordinary labourers.
Staffordshire
32s. 6d.
54
†




Per shift.
Per shift.



Coal Mining—
South Staffordshire
6s. 2d. plus
7½
South Staffordshire and East Worcestershire Coal Masters' Association and Representatives of the Workmen employed at the Collieries.


Underground labourers.

1s. per day.
Per week.



Surface labourers

6s. 2d. plus 1s. per day.
46



Pig Iron Manufacture—

Per shift.
Per shift.



General and by-turn labourers.
South Staffordshire
6s. o½d. plus 10·66 per cent.
8
South Staffordshire Iron-masters' Association and the National Union of Blastfurnacemen, Ore Miners, Coke Workers and Kindred Trades.


Brewing—

Per week.
Per week.



Labourers
Burton-on-Trent
58s. 0d.
48
Burton Brewers and Transport and General Workers' Union.


Flour Milling—






General labourers, cleaners, etc.
Walsall, West Bromwich and Wolverhampton.
54s. 6d.
47
National Joint Industrial Council for the Flour Milling Industry.



Bilston
52s. 0d.



Building—
Willenhall
48s. 6d.





Per hour.




Labourers
Burton-on-Trent, Tipton, Walsall (including Wednesbury and Darlaston), West Bromwich, Wolverhampton (including Willenhall and Bilston).
1s. 2d.
"Summer" 46½; Rest of year 44.
National Joint Council for the Building Industry. Note.—The rates quoted are to be increased, on and from 1st February, 1937, by ½d. per hour at Cannock and Hednesford, Stafford and Tamworth, and by ¼d. per hour in other districts mentioned.



Cannock and Hednesford, Stafford and Tamworth.
1s. 1½d.




Lichfield and Rugeley
1s. 1¼d.





Per hour.
Per week.



Civil Engineering— Navvies and labourers.
Smethwick, Walsall, West Bromwich and Wolverhampton.
1s. 2d.
Summer 49½ Winter 44
Civil Engineering Construction Conciliation Board for Great Britain.




Burton-on-Trent
1s. 2d.




Aldridge, Amblecote, Bilston, Brierley Hill, Brownhills, Cannock, Coseley, Darlaston, Lichfield, Sedgley, Stafford, Tamworth, Tetten-hall, Tipton, Wednesbury, Wednesfield and Willenhall.
1s. 1d.




Rugeley
1s. 0½d.




Rural Districts
1s. 0d.

are also, in most cases, of general application throughout the country and such rates are, of course, binding on all employers in the trades concerned in South Staffordshire.

Industry and Class of Worker.
District.
Rate of Wages.
Hours of Labour.
Parties to the Agreement.


Railway Service—

Per week.




Porters (Grade 2) (Traffic dept.).
Industrial Areas
40s. 0d.
48
Railway Companies and the National Union of Railwaymen.


Goods porters
Industrial Areas
44s. 0d.
Note.—The rate of 44s. is subject to a deduction of 6d. per week.


Railway Workshops—






Labourers (Grade II).
Walsall, West Bromwich, and Wolverhampton.
45s. 6d.
47
Railway Companies and the National Union of Railwaymen and the Federation of Engineering and Shipbuilding Trades.



Stafford
44s. 6d.







Note.—The rates quoted are subject to a deduction of 7d. and 6d. per week respectively.


Electricity Supply—






General Labourers.
Smethwick
1s. 1·78d.
47
District Industrial Council for the Electricity Supply Industry—No. 5 (West Midlands Area).



Stafford, Walsall, West Bromwich and Wolverhampton.
1s. 1·28d.




Cannock
1s. 0·78d.



Local Authorities' Non - Trading Services—






Labourers, roadmen, sweepers, etc.
Smethwick, Walsall, West Bromwich and Wolverhampton.
51s. 2½d.
47
West Midlands Joint Industrial Council for Local Authorities' Non-Trading Services (Manual Workers).



Bilston, Brierley Hill, Cannock, Coseley, Darlaston, Stafford, Tipton, Wednesbury, Wednesfield and Willenhall.
48s. 4d.




Aldridge, Brownhills, Lichfield, Tamworth and Sedgley.
45s. 6½d.




Amblecote, Rugeley and Tettenhall.
42s. 8½d.




Rural Districts adjacent to industrial areas.
38s. 11d.



* That part of the county lying south of a line through Stafford.


† In this case the minimum rate quoted is embodied in an Order under the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924.

DEATH PENALTY.

Mr. V. Adams: asked the Home Secretary what is the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to the death penalty?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir John Simon): I cannot add anything to the reply which I gave to a similar question by my hon. Friend on 21st May.

Mr. Adams: Is the right hon. Gentleman open to conviction on the matter? If I could show him that this particular

deterrent was not necessary, would he replace it by another?

AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Mr. Keeling: asked the Home Secretary how soon the proposed handbook on air raid precautions in the home will be published; what the price will be; whether information as to the best method of making premises gas-proof, blast-proof, and splinter-proof will be distributed to every householder and other occupier free of charge, and when?

Mr. Lloyd: A handbook for householders, giving simple information on these matters is now in process of final revision and should be ready for issue in the near future. The arrangements for publication are under consideration.

Mr. Keeling: Is my hon. Friend not in a position to answer whether the information will be given free to the public?

Mr. Lloyd: Not at the moment.

Mr. Keeling: asked the Home Secretary what progress has been made in training the Metropolitan police to protect the public during air raids?

Mr. Lloyd: I am glad to be able to say that the air raid precautions training of the Metropolitan Police is reaching completion, and will be approximately complete within a few weeks.

Mr. Keeling: Is similar progress being made in the training of provincial police?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir. Some of the provincial police forces have now completed their training, and, broadly speaking, the training of the police forces of the country should be completed within a few months.

Mr. Mitchell: asked the Home Secretary what precise arrangements are to be made for training British pharmacists in anti-gas work; and whether any retaining fees will be paid to pharmacists for their assistance in the anti-gas scheme?

Mr. Lloyd: The Pharmaceutical Society generously offered the co-operation of its members in connection with air raid precautions, and this offer was gratefully accepted. After discussion it was agreed that in the event of an emergency pharmacists could probably give the greatest service by carrying on with their ordinary work. Arrangements will be made as soon as possible for a number of places at the Civilian Anti-Gas School to be reserved for members of the society, who will be trained as instructors with a view to their training other members of the society in anti-gas precautions. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

ARSON, WALES (CONVICTIONS).

Mr. Richards: asked the Home Secretary whether he will take an early opportunity to review the sentences passed at the Old Bailey upon the three Welshmen found guilty of setting fire to a bombing school in North Wales, in view of the alleged political nature of the crime which arose out of the Government's refusal to receive a deputation on the matter, and of the other circumstances attending the case?

Sir J. Simon: There is no information before me to suggest that I should be justified in advising interference with the sentences which the court, after hearing all the evidence, thought it right to impose.

Mr. Richards: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there were political elements in this trial, and naturally those could not be considered by the court, and that the position was aggravated by the action of the Government in refusing to see the deputation?

Sir J. Simon: Everything that it was proper to urge was present to the mind of the learned judge, I have no doubt.

Sir William Davison: Why, when these gentlemen were found guilty of arson, were they sentenced to imprisonment in the second division?

Mr. Richards: Did not the judges in both cases definitely rule out these political considerations, so that they were not actually considered at all?

Mr. Macquisten: How can politics justify crime?

PRESS INQUIRIES.

Wing-Commander James: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the increasing intrusion of the Press upon the private lives of citizens, as instanced by the disclosures at an inquest held on 19th January that, failing to be given information by a harassed family at a time of great personal sorrow and having telephoned to the elderly widow at one a.m., certain organs of the Press published untrue, sensational, and painful details of the case; and whether any action can now


be devised to check such abuses of the liberty of the Press?

Sir J. Simon: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave on Monday last to my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison).

Wing-Commander James: Having regard to the very strong feeling that this matter arouses in all parts of the House, is the House likely to have an opportunity in the ordinary course of discussing it?

Sir J. Simon: That, of course, would not be for me to say. I should not have thought that the matter was relevant to any Vote, but of course there are other occasions.

Wing-Commander James: In that case, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

LIQUOR TRAFFIC (STATE CONTROL).

Mr. Lovat-Fraser: asked the Home Secretary (1) whether, in view of the statement by the Select Committee on Estimates that the cost of the London office for the State management of the drink traffic in Carlisle, Gretna, and Cromarty appeared to be excessive, he has taken or proposes to take any action;
(2) whether, in view of the recommendation of the Select Committee on Estimates that the whole organisation of the scheme for the State management of the drink traffic in Carlisle, Gretna, and Cromarty should be reconsidered, he proposes to take any action?

Sir J. Simon: The recommendations of the Select Committee have been considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself. Making allowance for the fact that the cost of the London office referred to by the committee includes the cost of the architect and his staff, the room for any saving in this item appears to be small, but I am considering whether any reduction will be practicable. After reviewing the general organisation of the undertakings in England and Scotland, my right hon. Friend and I do not propose to alter the existing system. This does not, of course, preclude consideration from time to time of possible improvements in the organisation.

Mr. Lovat-Fraser: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that this whole business is in the nature of a scandal?

Brigadier-General Spears: If the Carlisle experiment is considered to be a success, why has it not spread to the remainder of the country, and, if it is unsuccessful, why is it not discontinued at Carlisle?

Mr. Lovat-Fraser: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the statement by the Select Committee on Estimates that the State management of the liquor traffic in Gretna and Cromarty appeared to be most unbusinesslike, and in view of the recommendation by the Royal Commission that sat on licensing for Scotland in 1931 that the establishments at Gretna and Cromarty should be disposed of, he proposes to take any action?

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): On the question of general organisation, I would refer to the reply which has just been given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. As regards the management of the Scottish undertakings, I think my hon. Friend has inadvertently misinterpreted the report of the Select Committee and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland desires to make it plain that he is satisfied that that management is efficient and economical. The reply to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. Lovat-Fraser: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that this is a strange idea of efficiency?

APPROVED SCHOOLS.

Mr. Day: asked the Home Secretary the number of children that were committed to approved schools for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date under the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933; whether the accommodation of the various approved schools is sufficient to meet the demand; and what steps have been taken by the local authorities or the Government to see that all such schools have an authorised accommodation, fixed at a maximum consistent with all reasonable requirements as to health, education, and occupation?

Sir J. Simon: The number of children and young persons admitted to approved schools in England and Wales under


approved school orders during 1936 was 3,758. There is a need for additional approved school accommodation, which is being met by the provision of schools by local authorities and voluntary bodies. Seven such schools have been approved since March last and two more will be opened on 1st February. The certificate of approval issued to the managers, after consideration of all the circumstances, fixes the maximum accommodation for the school.

Mr. Day: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the shortage in the accommodation of approved schools has caused congestion in the remand homes?

Sir J. Simon: I should suppose that if there were a shortage of the one there would be some overcrowding in the other, but, as the hon. Member will see, the numbers are being increased.

ACT OF SETTLEMENT.

Mr. Mander: asked the Home Secretary whether it is proposed to introduce legislation to amend the Act of Settlement with a view to making clear that the Princess Elizabeth is the sole heir to the Throne and does not share it jointly with her sister on the analogy of the Peerage Law?

Sir J. Simon: No, Sir, there is no reason to do so. His Majesty's Government are advised that there is no doubt that in present circumstances Her Royal Highness the Princess Elizabeth would succeed to the Throne as sole heir.

FOREIGN RIDING INSTRUCTORS.

Major Procter: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the present number of foreign riding instructors who have permits from his Department to reside and carry out such instruction in this country; and how the number of such instructors compares with that in each of the past three years?

Mr. Lloyd: I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour that during the last three years no permit has

been issued by his Department to any employer to bring foreign riding instructors into this country. An occasional application may have been received from a foreign visitor for permission to remain here and open a riding school. Any such application would be dealt with on its merits in the light of the circumstances of the particular case and with due regard to any national interests involved. But no separate record is kept of applications of this kind, and I am afraid that it is not possible to give figures.

Mr. Petherick: Will it be possible for my hon. Friend to make a categorical statement to the House that it is not intended to give any of these permits in future in view of the immense number of ex-cavalry men who took part in the last War, and who are at present in the country and would be able to act as instructors?

Mr. Lloyd: Every case is examined on its merits with regard to the particular circumstances and interests involved, and I have no doubt that that is one of the considerations borne in mind.

POLICE COLLEGE.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Home Secretary whether any decision has been reached with regard to moving the police college from Hendon; if so, where to; what has been the total cost per head of each cadet passed through the college; whether the college is considered to have shown any results of value; and whether the higher authorities at Scotland Yard favour the experiment and wish it continued?

Sir J. Simon: The Commissioner of Police has represented to me that for various reasons the police college should be moved to a new site, and I have agreed in principle to his proposal. The new site has not yet been selected. Apart from interest on capital expenditure and cost of administration at Scotland Yard the total cost of training each cadet is about £420. It is somewhat early to assess the value of the results achieved, but the Commissioner is satisfied that the college will fully justify itself; he does not regard it as an experiment and most certainly wishes it to continue.

Mr. Mabane: Can the Home Secretary say whether the £420 which he mentioned is £420 a year or for some other period; and also what the figure would be if he included those particular charges which he omitted?

Sir J. Simon: The period is for the full period of training, which is about a year and a-half.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the present college was built for its present purpose?

Sir J. Simon: No, Sir.

COURTS OF SUMMARY JURISDICTION (SOCIAL SERVICES).

Mr. Viant: asked the Home Secretary whether any appointments have been made as a result of the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on the Social Services in the Courts of Summary Jurisdiction; and, if so, will he state the nature of such appointments and the districts affected?

Sir J. Simon: I think the hon. Member had s in mind appointments made by the justices. Since the issue of the report, some additional probation officers have been appointed in different parts of the country, but, except for the appointment of a principal probation officer in London, it is not possible for me to say how far these appointments were the outcome of the committee's recommendations.

GERMAN EMBASSY (REPAIRS, LABOUR).

Mr. Hicks: asked the Home Secretary what number of German workmen are employed in the repairs and renewals at the German Embassy; how many permits have been issued to import alien workers into this country on this job; what are the trades in which these men are employed; whether inquiries were made of the trades concerned in this country as to the available supply of labour necessary to do the work in question; and whether it is the practice of the Department to inquire of the trade unions concerned before granting permits for foreign workers to be allowed entry to work at their respective trades?

Sir J. Simon: I have made some inquiries into this matter and am informed

that extensive structural alterations have been taking place at the German Embassy involving the use and incorporation of special German material and furniture. For this purpose the Embassy requested that certain German technicians in various trades should be given temporary permission to come here and, while we naturally prefer that British workmen should be employed on such work in this country, it was thought that in the special circumstances permission should be given. Some of these workmen have already returned, and the German Embassy have informed the Foreign Office that the rest will be going back in batches very shortly. I understand that the number of German workmen being employed at the Embassy is about 120 and I am informed that about 130 British workmen have also been employed.

Mr. Hicks: Is there any limitation to the numbers which it would be decided to impose so far as any building alterations were concerned; and would it apply to other Embassies such as, for instance, the Russian Embassy, if they were to desire to build a big place here? As the whole thing is very unsatisfactory, would the right hon. Gentleman indicate what the special class of work is, and whether plastering and whitewashing now become part of the German Diplomatic Service?

Sir J. Simon: I take the view that the position is anomalous, and I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that a general permit for unlimited numbers would be quite out of the question. I understand that special numbers have been asked for, and that from time to time they are under consideration, but the Foreign Office is in communication with the German Embassy about the matter.

Sir J. Nail: Does the British Government adopt the same policy in repairing our buildings abroad?

Sir J. Simon: I do not know what the position is, but we must remember that it is a diplomatic house, and we should expect the same consideration in corresponding circumstances.

Mr. Hicks: Do we understand from the answer of the Home Secretary now that building alterations are part of the Diplomatic Service and do territorial rights extend to that sort of thing?

Sir J. Simon: I think that the hon. Gentleman will not have misunderstood me. I made the obvious remark that the Embassy, by which I mean the house, is, from some points of view, diplomatic premises.

Mr. Sandys: Is this not merely the ordinary diplomatic courtesy which we are glad to extend to any foreign country?

Sir John Haslam: Is it the fact that the German Government pay for these 250 workpeople?

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

EXPENDITURE.

Mr. Lathan: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he has considered the communication sent from the Sheffield Education Committee showing the increased percentage of cost of education which has to be covered by local rates, and the decreasing percentage of cost covered by Government grants; and whether, seeing that the present system of Government grants calls for complete revision, he will give the fullest consideration to the recommendation of the Sheffield education authority, supported by the Association of Education Committees, that the whole question of Government grants towards education be examined by a Royal Commission or some other appropriate body?

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which my hon. Friend gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander), a copy of which I am sending him.

Mr. Lathan: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the reply which was given yesterday covers the concluding part of the question which now appears upon the Order Paper; and may I ask him not to close this matter in consideration of what is widely believed to be a well-founded objection to an inequitable arrangement?

Mr. Stanley: The whole question was raised very fully by a deputation from the Association of Education Committees, and, after hearing their statement of the case, I came to the conclusion which I have given in my reply.

MILK AND MEALS IN SCHOOL.

Mr. Shin well: asked the President of the Board of Education how many children attending State-aided schools are receiving a milk ration; and how many receive other meals?

Mr. Stanley: On 1st October, 1936, the number of full-time pupils in State-aided schools in England and Wales who were receiving milk at school was 2,670,570, of whom 372,174 were receiving it free of charge. The number of children in public elementary schools in England and Wales who received free ordinary meals during November, 1936, was 88,761. In addition, about 32,000 children in public elementary schools are paying for meals at school canteens or feeding centres. No figures are available as to the number of children receiving ordinary meals in schools other than public elementary schools.

Mr. Ede: Has the right hon. Gentleman any figures in regard to the number of special cases of children in secondary schools who receive meals as part of scholarship arrangements?

Mr. Stanley: No, I am afraid that I have no such figures.

Mr. Sandys: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be able to announce the extension of the scheme as foreshadowed by the Minister of Health a little while ago?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Member had better put that question down.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the President of the Board of Education what is the estimated cost of supplying all children attending State-aided schools with one meal per day other than milk?

Mr. Stanley: If free dinners were provided on 200 school days for all the 5,750,000 full-time pupils under 18 years of age attending State-aided schools in England and Wales, the cost, assuming a gross cost of 5d. per meal, including food and overhead charges, would be about £24,000,000 per annum. If the provision were extended to days, including Saturdays and Sundays, when the schools do not meet, the cost would be about £43,700,000 per annum. These figures make no allowance for the cost of additional premises, the amount of which I am unable to forecast, but which would no doubt be considerable.

Mr. Shinwell: Why does the right hon. Gentleman estimate the gross cost to be 5d., when the local authorities provide free meals at a cost of 3d?

Mr. Stanley: My experience is that in nearly all the school canteens of which I have any knowledge the gross cost is about 5d.

Mr. Johnston: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in Bradford, where the largest number of children are supplied by any local authority with a hot meal, the cost works out at 3d?

Mr. Stanley: I must repeat what I have said. I recently sent out a questionnaire in regard to the provision of meals in school canteens, and as a result I find that 5d. is the normal price.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the President of the Board of Education what is the estimated cost of supplying all children attending State-aided schools with one pint of milk per day?

Mr. Stanley: There are about 5,750,000 full-time pupils under 18 years of age attending State-aided schools in England and Wales. To supply this number with a pint of milk daily for 200 school days about 144,000,000 gallons of milk would be required. If the provision were extended to days when the schools do not meet, about 262,000,000 gallons would be required. I am not in a position to give an estimate of the cost to public funds which would be involved if this quantity of milk were supplied free, as the price per gallon could only be determined after negotiations with the milk industry. If, however, the cost is assumed to be is. 4¼d. per gallon, as at present, the total cost to public funds may be estimated at about £10,000,000 per annum for 200 school days, or about £18,000,000 per annum if the provision were extended to days when the schools do not meet.

Mr. T. Williams: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the price presently charged under the existing milk scheme could not be materially reduced if all children were receiving milk?

Mr. Stanley: Perhaps the hon. Member will read my answer, and he will see that is why I guarded myself as to cost. I only gave a calculation based on the existing price.

Mr. Williams: Why does the right hon. Gentleman base his estimate on the highest figures? Will he look into the matter further and make a calculation based upon every child receiving one pint of milk, instead of some receiving one-third of a pint? Would not the cost be reduced if all were receiving one pint?

Mr. Stanley: It is impossible to make any calculation, because I do not know to what arrangements we should be able to come with the Milk Board.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much extra would be involved in this universal pauperisation if we were to provide every member with a copy of the "Daily Herald"?

Major Herbert: asked the President of the Board of Education what per centage of children in the rural and in the urban districts, respectively, of the county of Monmouth are receiving milk under the milk-in-schools scheme?

Mr. Stanley: On 1st October, 1936, the percentages of children on the registers of public elementary schools in the rural and the urban districts of the administrative county of Monmouth for purposes of elementary education who were receiving milk under the Milk-in-Schools Scheme were 26 and 36 respectively. In addition, 9 per cent, of the children in the rural districts and 3 per cent, of the children in the urban districts were receiving milk (mainly preparations of dried milk) outside the scheme.

Major Herbert: How does this percentage compare with similar districts in other areas?

Mr. Stanley: I should not like to commit myself to saying how it compares with similar districts.

Major Herbert: asked the President of the Board of Education what provision is being made in the rural and in the urban areas, respectively, of the country of' Monmouth for school canteens?

Mr. Stanley: I understand that no provision is made in the area of the Monmouthshire local education authority for school canteens where children may obtain meals on payment as distinct from feeding centres for the provision of free meals.

Major Herbert: Will the right hon. Gentleman by some method encourage or urge local authorities to institute school canteens in their areas, especially in the rural areas where children have to come great distances?

Mr. Stanley: Last year, in a circular, I drew the attention of local authorities to the desirability of providing school canteens at schools where children come from a distance. In considering plans for new senior schools I always take this point into consideration.

Major Herbert: asked the President of the Board of Education what is the income scale for purposes of free meals and/or milk in schools in Monmouth shire; and how this compares with the scales adopted by other authorities?

Mr. Stanley: The income scale adopted by the Monmouthshire local education authority for the purpose of free meals and/or milk is an allowance of 10s. for each parent and 5s. for each child up to a maximum of £1. Where the family income does not exceed the figures obtained on this basis meals or milk are given free. No deduction is made for rent before calculating the income, and the scale is considerably less liberal than those normally adopted by other authorities. As stated in the reply which I gave on 19th January to the hon. Member for Western Stirling and Clackmannan (Mr. Johnston), I understand that the authority are considering the question of introducing a more generous income scale.

NEW SCHOOL SITE, CATERHAM VALLEY.

Mr. Emmott: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware of the great anxiety of, the local residents in regard to the site of the new school in Caterham Valley; and whether he will ask the local education authority to endeavour to secure another more suit able site for the school?

Mr. Stanley: This case has been considered most carefully on more than one occasion by the local education authority and by the Board. I also received representations from the Caterham and District Ratepayers' Association and the Warlingham Ratepayers' Association, and gave the case my consideration, but I am satisfied that there is no sufficient ground for asking the local education authority to change the site.

SCHOOL HOME-WORK.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the President of the Board of Education whether the report of his inspectors on the question of school home-work is now available to Members?

Mr. Stanley: Work on this report is approaching completion, and I hope that it will be available in a few weeks time.

Mr. Bellenger: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the report will deal with the subject in two parts, relating to boys and girls?

Mr. Stanley: I cannot say that at the moment.

FLEET AIR ARM.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister when a Cabinet decision concerning the future of the Fleet Air Arm may be expected?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Baldwin): I am not in a position to make any statement on this subject.

RENT RESTRICTIONS ACTS.

Mr. E. Smith: asked the Minister of Health whether, on the expiration of the Rent Act in 1938, it is proposed to abolish the 40 per cent, increase in the rents of houses?

The Minister of Health (Sir Kingsley Wood): The Government have not yet considered whether it is necessary to take further action in connection with the Rent Restrictions Acts.

Mr. Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give sympathetic consideration to this suggestion, in view of the fact that there has been an approximate reduction of wages by 50 per cent, since this increase was put upon the rents?

Sir K. Wood: Without accepting the statement of the hon. Member, it is obvious that the whole matter will have to be considered before 1938, when the Act expires.

Sir Percy Harris: Will not a new Act have to be passed this year in order to prevent the Act lapsing next year?

Sir K. Wood: I think it is March, 1938.

Mr. E. J. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that high rent charge is largely responsible for malnutrition, as it consumes a very large portion of the earnings of workpeople?

Sir K. Wood: That is another question.

THE CORONATION.

Major Stourton: asked the Lord President of the Council what seating accommodation will be available for the use of Members and their families to view the Coronation procession, in addition to the allocations already made in Westminster Abbey?

Mr. Hall-Caine: asked the Lord President of the Council whether arrange ments will be made in connection with the allocation of seats for the Coronation procession to provide adequate accommodation in the vicinity of the Palace of Westminster for Members of Parliament and their families, and for as many as possible of the permanent staff of both Houses of Parliament and other persons who work therein, together with their families?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The arrangements for the allocation of seats for the Coronation procession are still being worked out, and the points mentioned in my hon. Friends' questions are being considered.

OLD AGE PENSIONERS.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Health the figures of those who are drawing old age pensions who are also getting assistance from Poor Law relief; and will he say if they are increasing or not?

Sir K. Wood: The number of persons in England and Wales drawing old age pensions under the various Acts who were also in receipt of poor relief was 202,438 on 1st January, 1936, the latest date for which complete figures are available. Most of these persons were in receipt of relief on account of sickness. Although the numbers have increased somewhat during recent years, they represent less than 10 per cent, of the total number of old age pensioners.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Health the present number of wives who

have not reached 65 years of age whose husbands are drawing the pension under the Widows, Orphans and Old Age Contributory Pensions scheme; and will he say whether these figures are on the increase or not?

Sir K. Wood: The precise information asked for by the hon. Member is not available, but it is estimated that there are at present 250,000 wives of this class and that the number is slowly increasing.

Mr. Tinker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a very serious defect in the Act, and will he take steps to remedy it by putting man and wife on pension?

Sir K. Wood: The hon. Member has asked me a question about figures. He is now asking a question about a matter of policy—

Mr. Tinker: Are you afraid?

Sir K. Wood: I am not afraid, but the matter, obviously, is one involving large financial considerations. If the hon. Member desires me to give him a reply, perhaps he will put the question on the Order Paper.

Miss Ward: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the strong feeling there is in support of the suggestion in all parts of the country?

Mr. Tinker: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that there are cases where an old age pensioner has had his pension stopped when he has entered a hospital or Poor Law institution, and on leaving, through not being aware that it would only be renewed on application, has lost a period of payment in between leaving and making the application; and what steps he intends to take to make the pensioner aware of the position so that these mistakes will be prevented?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): I have been looking into this matter, and am arranging for the notice sent by the pension officer to the pensioner on raising a question to include a statement drawing attention to the fact that the pension cannot be renewed on the cessation of disqualification or disentitlement unless a fresh claim is made and allowed.

Mr. Tinker: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation, there are a few cases of which I know where people have lost their old age pension, and will he consider those with a view to remedying the defects?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I cannot promise to consider retrospective cases, but I will look into any present cases which the hon. Member may bring to my notice.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mr. E. J. Williams: asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the representations from the Institute of Chemist-Opticians and other pharmacists as regards National Health Insurance, ophthalmic and optical benefits, in Draft Statutory Rules and Orders, 1936, No. 434; and what action he proposes to take in view of these representations?

Sir K. Wood: The representations which have been made on behalf of the Institute of Chemist-Opticians will be brought to the notice of the approved committee to be set up under the new regulations. This committee is to include representatives of approved societies and organisations of opticians, among which I understand that the Institute of Chemist-Opticians is to be included, and it will be the duty of the committee to determine the qualifications which will entitle opticians to inclusion in a list of those to be recognised for the purposes of ophthalmic benefit.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

SCARLET FEVER (DONCASTER AREA).

Mr. Short: asked the Minister of Health the additional cost to the rate payers of Doncaster and the rural area, respectively, due to the recent scarlet fever epidemic?

Sir K. Wood: I am informed that the additional cost to the rates, due to the recent outbreak of scarlet fever caused by infected milk, is at present estimated at £365 in the borough of Doncaster, and /70 in the rural district.

CROWN PROPERTY.

Mr. Short: asked the Minister of Health whether the provisions of the

Public Health Acts are, in all cases, applied to Crown offices where clerks are employed; and whether the officers of local authorities are given right of entry?

Sir K. Wood: These provisions do not at present apply to Government Offices, but Section 341 of the Public Health Act, 1936, which comes into operation on 1st October next, will enable the corresponding provisions of that Act to be applied to Crown property by agreement between the appropriate Government Department and the local authority concerned.

HOLLYWOOD MENTAL HOSPITAL (MEDICAL STAFF).

Sir Arnold Wilson: asked the Minister of Health whether any inquiry has been or will be held by his Department as to the circumstances in which a medical practitioner at Hollywood Mental Hospital was retained on the staff although to the knowledge of the chief resident medical officer, as stated at the inquest on the body of the man in question, he had been drinking heavily for the past eight years; and whether he is satisfied that the charge of mentally afflicted persons can safely be entrusted to men so affected?

Sir K. Wood: I am aware of the Press report of statements made at the inquest referred to, and I am in communication with the committee of the hospital. I should like to say, however, that the hospital in question has maintained a high standard in the care and treatment of the patients.

MATERNAL MORTALITY.

Mr. G. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Health the number of deaths in child birth for the year 1936, and the number of deaths arising out of childbirth for the year 1936?

Sir K. Wood: I regret that the figures asked for are not yet available.

PAPWORTH SANATORIUM.

Mr. Rowson: asked the Minister of Health the total number of deaths from tuberculosis and other causes which have occurred at Papworth sanatorium, Cam bridgeshire, and also in Papworth village settlement, during the past seven years?

Sir K. Wood: I am informed by the authorities of the Cambridgeshire Tuberculosis Colony, Papworth, that the total number of deaths which have occurred


in the Colony's hospital during the last seven years is 359, of which 28 were deaths of persons transferred from the village settlement, and that the number of deaths actually occurring in the village settlement during the same period was 13. I cannot at present state the precise proportion of these deaths which were due to tuberculosis, but I am making inquiries and will inform the hon. Member of the result. I should add that the colony receives patients in all stages of tuberculosis, including advanced cases.

Mr. Rowson: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the number of deaths which have taken place from tuberculosis within six months after leaving the sanatorium?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir, but if the hon. Member will put that question on the Paper I will endeavour to obtain the information.

Captain Heilgers: Is it not a pity that anything should be said which might damage the reputation of an institution which has done most effective work for sufferers from tuberculosis?

Sir K. Wood: I did not understand that that was the case. This is, however, a fine example of the excellent work which is being done in this matter.

Mr. Rowson: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that persons suffering seriously from tuberculosis are employed in factories at Papworth, and in some cases so employed until a few clays before death; and will he have an inquiry made into this situation?

Sir K. Wood: I am making inquiries into this matter and will inform the hon. Member of the result.

Mr. Rowson: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept names and dates which have been supplied to me by relatives of patients who have been in this institution?

Sir K. Wood: I shall be glad to receive anything which the hon. Member sends me, but I understood that he was asking me for information.

TUBERCULOSIS.

Mr. Rowson: asked the Minister of Health the total number of deaths from tuberculosis, pulmonary and non-pulmonary, which have occurred during the last 10 years in England and Wales, and Scotland respectively?

Sir K. Wood: As the answer involves a tabular statement, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The last available figures for England and Wales are those for the 10 years to 1935 inclusive. As regards the figures for Scotland, a question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Following is the statement:


Deaths from Tuberculosis, England and Wales, registered in each of the years 1926 to 1935 inclusive.



Pulmonary.
Non-Pulmonary.


1926
30,108
7,422


1927
31,066
7,114


1928
29,799
6,833


1929
31,425
6,576


1930
29,414
6,336


1931
29,658
6,060


1932
27,627
6,031


1933
27,854
5,405


1934
25,682
5,200


1935
24,603
4,598

TYNESIDE LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

Sir A. Wilson: asked the Minister of Health whether the Royal Commission on Tyneside Local Government which was appointed in 1935 has indicated the probable approximate date by which their report will be completed?

Sir K. Wood: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams) on 21st January, of which I am sending him a copy.

Sir A. Wilson: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask whether in view of the great importance of this question in relation to Special Areas he will consider printing the evidence so that we may have it at our disposal before we discuss the Special Areas?

Sir K. Wood: I think we should have the report first. That will be the most convenient course.

INSURANCE AND PENSION SCHEMES.

Mr. Maclay: asked the Minister of Health whether, when considering the


long-term policy in connection with insurance and pensions schemes, he bases his calculations on the likelihood of the United Kingdom population increasing or decreasing in numbers; and, if so, whether he can give any indication of the estimated increase or decrease during a given number of years?

Sir K. Wood: Where long-term estimates are necessary, as in connection with the contributory pensions scheme, the trend of population figures is taken into account. I would refer the hon. Member to the estimates of the insured population in Table A in the Appendix and in paragraphs 53 and 54 of the report by the Government Actuary on the working of the Contributory Pensions Acts which was issued in May, 1935 (H.C. 82/1935).

Mr. Cart land: Is the question of population kept continually under review in the Ministry, and are estimates with regard to the future also made from time to time?

Sir K. Wood: That is a general question. The question itself relates to a particular matter. If the hon. Member wants any further information on the general question, perhaps he will communicate with me.

RATING (SITE VALUES).

Mr. Lathan: asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the communication from the London County Council urging the desirability of legislation being introduced at an early date to empower local authorities to levy a rate on site value; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Sir K. Wood: I have considered the communication referred to. I do not contemplate the introduction of legislation for this purpose.

FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS (SHIFT SYSTEM).

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Home Secretary whether, in connection with the Shift System in Factories and Workshops (Consultation of Workpeople) Order, he can give an assurance that the provision that the employer must give information

as to adjustments in wages and working conditions also covers earnings, lest the employer should seek to introduce piece rates without warning?

Sir J. Simon: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

HOUSING AND TOWN PLANNING INSPECTORS (SALARIES).

Mr. Guy: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the differentiation of salary offered for men and women housing and town-planning inspectors; and whether he can state the reason for such differentiation, in view of the fact that equivalent expert knowledge of the kind in question must be possessed by all successful candidates?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I have been asked to reply. The relation between the pay of men and women was fixed in accordance with normal Civil Service practice as described in paragraphs 450 and 451 of the report of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service, 1929–31. The policy underlying this practice was explained by the Prime Minister during the course of the Debate on 6th April last.

Mr. Guy: Does not this differentiation in the rate constitute an invitation to the female applicants to undercut the standard rate?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: That is a wide question, which refers to other officers besides those classes of officers of which the hon. Member has spoken.

TERRITORIAL ARMY (RECRUITING).

Sir A. Wilson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to encourage recruiting for the Territorial Army in the Civil Service and in the country as a whole, he will cancel or modify Treasury Circular E/1206/4 of 10th September, 1929, which cancelled a previous undertaking that conscientious objectors who are employed in the Civil Service and who have refused to serve in the Army shall not be promoted over the heads of civil servants who have served or are serving in the Army; and whether he can state how many conscientious objectors were so promoted?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Chamberlain): The decision to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers is of long standing, and His Majesty's Government are not prepared to cancel or modify it. It is not thought that action of the kind proposed would have any beneficial effect on recruiting for the Territorial Army. As regards the second part of the question, I regret that no recent information is available. The number of promotions which took place directly after the 1929 decision was three.

INCOME TAX (FAMILY ALLOWANCES).

Mr. Rankin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the rapid decline in population which is expected to take place in this country during the next 25 years; and whether, in view of the difficulties which such a reduction would cause from the point of view of revenue, he will give special consideration, in connection with his forthcoming Budget, to a further increase in family allowances?

Mr. Chamberlain: My hon. Friend may rest assured that all relevant factors will be taken into consideration in framing the Budget.

Mr. Bellenger: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to receive a deputation from heavily-burdened parents on this matter?

Mr. Thorne: When the Chancellor of the Exchequer is making up his next Budget, will he consider the possibility of giving £10 for every child that is born?

ARMAMENTS MANUFACTURE (PROFITS).

Mr. Day: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps the Government now propose to take to ensure that excessive profits are not made during the Government's rearmament programme and from the manufacture or production of various sorts of war materials?

Mr. Chamberlain: As indicated in the reply given to the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) on 12th March last, steps were taken at the commencement of the rearmament programme to ensure that excessive profits are not made

by contractors. The policy of His Majesty's Government is that, in cases where it is impossible to secure effective competitive tendering, contracts should be settled on the basis of allowing a fair and reasonable profit, having regard to the circumstances of each case, including such factors as the extent of the orders and a reasonable return on the capital assets directly employed. The information necessary to determine a fair price is obtained by such methods as examination of contractors' books by the Defence Department's accountants or by the preparation of technical estimates of costs.

Mr. Day: Have many of these examinations taken place?

Mr. Chamberlain: Yes, they are taking place all the time.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: Does the right hon. Gentleman regard a 30 per cent, return on the capital of the aircraft companies as a reasonable profit?

Mr. Chamberlain: That must similarly be settled by the relation between the profit and the capital of the company. We have to take into account the amount of work that is being done, and the volume.

Mr. Day: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that that carries out the Prime Minister's previous promises?

Mr. H. G. Williams: Are the firms engaged in carrying out these contracts given a free hand to pay any wages they like in order to attract men from other occupations?

Mr. Chamberlain: I think the hon. Member had better put that question on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

MILK MARKETING SCHEME (LEVIES).

Mr. Whiteley: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that three cows were sold for 7s. at Stanley, Durham, to secure levies due to the Milk Marketing Board from Mr. W. Mitcheson, Bumhope Flats farm; and, as this procedure is causing considerable anxietv in the district, whether he will have inquiries made into the matter?

Mr. Thorne: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can give the House any information about the sale of three


animals, the property of Mr. Mitcheson, of Bumhope Flats farm, which were seized by the county court bailiff on information laid by the Milk Marketing Board, and were auctioned at Stanley, Durham; whether he can state the amount for which the animals were sold; and whether the total amount received cleared the debt owing by the farmer?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I understand from the Milk Marketing Board that Mr. Mitcheson is a producer-retailer of milk, who has held a producer-retailer's licence throughout the operation of the Milk Marketing Scheme, but has persistently refused to pay the contributions due to the Board under the provisions of the scheme. After several warnings and requests for payment, the Board took steps for the recovery, through the county court, of the sums due and obtained judgment for £28 4s. 8d. for levies and £3 4s. 6d. costs. In default of payment on the court order, the order was executed and three cows were sold by auction for 7s. As far as can be ascertained by the Board, the cows are still on Mr. Mitcheson's premises. The hon. Members will be aware that under the provisions of the Milk Marketing Scheme all licensed producer-retailers of milk are required to make certain contributions to the Board; and in justice to the great majority who meet their obligations, the Board must take steps to recover the sums due from defaulters. The Board are considering what further action to take in this case.

Mr. Thorne: Having regard to the sum realised from the sale of these cows, does it not prove what combination can do?

Mr. Morrison: I am not prepared to say without notice what factors made the price paid for these cows so low.

Mr. Macquisten: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that thousands of small cow-owners in Scotland have been groaning under the burden of this levy, and that many have been ruined?

BUTTER.

Major Carver: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, with a view to absorbing the surplus of liquid milk, he will consider the possibility of evolving

a scheme for encouraging a larger production of butter on farms?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: If my hon. and gallant Friend will let me know the kind of scheme he has in mind, I will arrange for the possibilities to be examined in collaboration with the industry.

Major Carver: asked the Minister of Agriculture what has been the quarterly output of butter from factories controlled by the Milk Marketing Board since the inception of the latter; and what is the estimated output for the current year?

Mr. Morrison: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:


Output of butter from creameries controlled by the Milk Marketing Board.



Cwts.


April-June, 1935
52


July-September, 1935
207


October-December, 1935
958


January-March, 1936
1,115


April-June, 1936
1,227


July September, 1936
1,727


October-December, 1936
3,721

The board estimate that the output of butter from their creameries in 1937 will be about 20,000 cwt.

INTERNATIONAL BEEF CONFERENCE.

Mr. Tree: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has any further statement to make about the representation of United Kingdom producers on the International Beef Conference and the Empire Beef Council?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: Yes, Sir. In amplification of the statement made by my hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions in the Debate on the Second Reading of the Livestock Industry Bill, I am glad to be able to announce that the recommendation submitted to the National Farmers' Unions of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland by their Co-ordinating Committee, has now been adopted by each of those organisations, and that Lord Bingley has consented to be nominated as the representative of United Kingdom producers on the International Beef Conference and the Empire Beef Council. I am sure that his selectioa will be received with general satisfaction.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

NEW STAMPS.

Mr. V. Adams: asked the Postmaster-General what steps are being taken to secure a better design for the new issue of postage stamps?

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Sir Walter Womersley): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers given to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), on 21st January, and to my hon. Friend the Member for East Dorset (Mr. Hall-Caine), on 26th January.

TELEPHONE DIRECTORY (SOUTH FIFE).

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a new directory has been issued to telephone subscribers in the southern part of Fife which excludes all reference to the north of Fife and Dundee and Perth areas, with which Fife towns do constant business; why this change has been made without consultation with the Fife county council," and whether in view of the inconvenience caused to business and private interests in the district, he will cause a revised directory to be issued at the earliest moment?

Sir W. Womersley: The names of south Fife subscribers are contained in the Dundee directory as well as the Edinburgh directory; and it is the intention to supply south Fife subscribers with both directories, as was done last July. I am sorry that there has been a slight delay in supplying the Dundee directory but its distribution throughout south Fife will be completed this week.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: Has the Prime Minister any statement to make on the Business for next week, and will he also tell us how far he proposes to go to-day in the event of the 11 o'Clock Rule being suspended?

The Prime Minister: We are suspending the 11 o'Clock Rule for the Second Reading of the Maternity Services (Scotland) Bill and the Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution for that Bill, and the Second Reading of the Harbours, Piers and Ferries (Scotland) Bill. We would like to obtain Orders 3 to 7, which deal with Unemployment Assistance and

grants to Local Authorities, and the two Orders with regard to the India and Burma (Existing Laws) Bill and the East India (Loans) Report Stage. These Orders are of a minor character, and I do not think they can be called controversial. The Business for next week is as follows:

Monday: Second Reading of the Merchant Shipping Bill; and Committee stage of the British Shipping (Continuance of Subsidy) Money Resolution.

Tuesday: Second Reading of the Regency Bill. I may say that the Regency Bill will be in the Vote Office this evening. Second Reading of the Public Works Loans Bill, and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution; Committee stage of the Empire Settlement Bill; Committee stage of the Chairmen of Traffic Commissioners Money Resolution; and Report stage of the British Shipping (Continuance of Subsidy) Money Resolution.

Wednesday: Private Members'Motions.

Thursday: Committee stage and Third Reading of the Regency Bill; Second Reading of the British Shipping (Continuance of Subsidy) Bill; and the Committee stage of the Statutory Salaries Money Resolution.

Friday: Private Members' Bills.

During the week, as opportunity offers, other Orders may be taken.

Sir P. Harris: Can the Prime Minister give any indication as to when the Factories Bill is likely to be introduced? Does he realise that it is a very lengthy Bill, and that if it is not introduced early, the prospects of it getting through will be limited?

The Prime Minister: We hope that it will be in the hands of hon. Members by the middle of next week, and we are very anxious to get it through the Second Reading because, as the hon. Baronet said, it is a very lengthy Bill.

Mr. Batey: Can the Prime Minister say when we may expect the Special Areas Bill which was promised?

The Prime Minister: I hope that will not be long, but I cannot give any precise time yet. Perhaps the hon. Member will ask next week.

Mr. Batey: As the Bill was promised for January, may we expect it in February?

The Prime Minister: My information is that such an undertaking was not given.

Mr. Batey: The Minister of Labour, speaking outside the House, said so, and that is why I withdrew my Amendment

Division No. 57.]
AYES.
[3.48 p.m.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Munro, P.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Nail, Sir J.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Furness, S. N.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Ganzoni, Sir J.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Assheton, R.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Gluokstein, L. H.
Patrick, C. M.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Peaks, O.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Peters, Dr. S. J.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Petherick, M.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Grimston, R. V.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Guy, J. C. M.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Hanbury, Sir C.
Procter, Major H. A.


Blair, Sir R.
Hannah, I. C.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Blindell, Sir J.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Ramsbotham, H.


Boulton, W. W.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Brass, Sir W.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Holmes, J. S.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Bull, B. B.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hopkinson, A.
Rothschild, J. A. de


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Rowlands, G.


Butler, R. A.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Caine, G. R. Hall-
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Salmon, Sir I.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hunter, T.
Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)


Cartland, J. R. H.
Jackson, Sir H.
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)


Carver, Major W. H.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Cary, R. A.
Keeling, E. H.
Sandys, E. D.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Savery, Servington


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Scott, Lord William


Channon, H.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Selley, H. R.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Leckie, J. A.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Leigh, Sir J.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S.G'gs)
Lewis, O.
Somerset, T.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Crooke, J. S.
Lloyd, G. W.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Cross, R. H.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr, O. S.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Spender-Clay, Lt.-CI. Rt. Hn. H. H.


Culverwell, C. T.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.



Davison, Sir W. H.
M'Connell, Sir J.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Donner, P. W.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Scot. U.)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Storey, S.


Dugdale, Major T. L.
McKie, J. H.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Duggan, H. J.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Duncan, J. A. L.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Dunglass, Lord
Macquisten, F. A.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Dunne, P. R. R.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Edge, Sir W.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Sutcliffe, H.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Touche, G. C.


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Train, Sir J.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Entwistle, C. F.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Errington, E.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)

to the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. May we expect the Bill in February?

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 213; Noes, 87.

Warrender, Sir V.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)



Waterhouse, Captain C.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wayland, Sir W. A.
Womersley, Sir W. J.
Sir George Penny and Lieut.-


Wedderburn, H. J. S.
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.
Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.


White, H. Graham
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)





NOES.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Hollins, A.
Riley, B.


Adamson, W. M.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Ritson, J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
John, W.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Ammon, C. G.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Rowson, G.


Batey, J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Salter, Dr. A.


Bellenger, F. J.
Kelly, W. T.
Sanders, W. S.


Benson, G.
Lathan, G.
Shinwell, E.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Lawson, J. J.
Short, A.


Charleton, H. C.
Lee, F.
Simpson, F. B.


Chater, D.
Leonard, W.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Logan, D. G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Day, H.
McGhee, H. G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Dobbie, W.
Maclean, N.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Ede, J. C.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Thorne, W.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Mathers, G.
Thurtle, E.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Montague, F.
Tinker, J. J.


Gallacher, W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Viant, S. P.


Gardner, B. W.
Muff, G.
Walker, J.


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Oliver, G. H.
Watson, W. McL.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Paling, W.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Grenfell, D. R.
Parkinson, J. A.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Potts, J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Hayday, A.
Pritt, D. N.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Quibell, D. J. K.



Hicks, E. G.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Ridley, G.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Groves.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C: Colonel Baldwin-Webb, Mr. Denman, and Miss Horsbrugh; and had appointed in substitution: Major Courtauld, Sir Edmund Findlay, and Colonel Windsor-Clive.

Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C (added in respect of the Livestock Industry Bill): Dr. Howitt; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Francis Fremantle.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — MATERNITY SERVICES (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

3 58 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Elliot): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill is intended to deal with a stubborn and intractable problem which, for long, has preoccupied those who are engaged in the public health service in Scotland. I refer to the problem of maternal mortality. In 1935 there was issued, under the auspices of a specially appointed sub-committee of the Advisory Committee of the Department of Health for Scotland, a report on maternal morbidity and mortality in Scotland. That was the report of a highly competent, technical committee which included among its members Professor Johnstone, Professor of Midwifery in the University of Edinburgh, Professor Hendry, Professor of Midwifery in the University of Glasgow, and Dr. Buist, Dundee, Chairman of the Central Mid-wives Board of Scotland. In a prefatory note to the report it is stated that these eminent gentlemen concur in the conclusions and recommendations formulated, and at the same time desire to record their conviction of the urgent need for improvement in the standard of midwifery in Scotland.
This Bill is for the purpose of carrying out, as far as possible, the recommendations of that report, and I believe that the House and, later on, the Scottish Standing Committee will find that it does so very closely. The object is to improve the standard of midwifery in the home in Scotland, and to secure adequate nursing and medical services for women who are confined in their own homes. The Bill is based on the recommendations of this report, and I hope very much that it will be found to be non-controversial, as it certainly is nonparty, for I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members in all quarters of the House will concur emphatically in the desire to remove the reproach under which we lie in Scotland in relation to maternal mortality. I hope that the House in general will assent to the recommendations which we are laying before it today to remove that reproach. We do

not wish, of course, to paint too black a picture of the conditions out of which the Bill has arisen. It would certainly be wrong to spread amongst prospective mothers an impression that might give rise to a complex, a feeling of fear or panic with regard to confinement, for, after all, child-bearing is a normal function and it should not be associated with the atmosphere of dread of a major surgical operation. It is true that there is a death rate of six mothers for every 1,000 children born in Scotland. That indicates a greater degree of ill health, which we cannot properly measure but which we all know, even from our own experience of personal friends and acquaintances, is far greater than it ought to be. We believe that some of these lives could be saved and that much of this ill health could be prevented by properly co-ordinated arrangements for attending to the health of the women before confinement, during confinement, and after confinement in their own homes.
In short, the purpose of the Bill is to secure for every woman in labour in Scotland the same order of skill and attention as we would wish for any of our own people. The practice in regard to maternity in Scotland differs from that in England. Scottish doctors take a larger part in confinements than English doctors, and the midwives, of course, take a correspondingly less part. The Bill takes account of these conditions and differs from the English Bill. The scheme of the Bill is not limited to a midwife service but also brings in doctors and a specialist service. Every expectant mother who desires to be confined in her own home will be entitled to obtain the services of a midwife and doctor, and, what is more, if the need arises the doctor will be at liberty to call for the advice or help of an obstetrician of recognised standing. There may be districts in the Highlands and Islands where it will not be practicable to make specialist help readily accessible, but the intention is there and it will be carried out as far as is humanly possible. When a suitable period has elapsed after a confinement the doctor will visit the mother with a view to giving her advice as to any treatment she may need. We think that this post-natal examination is of the greatest importance as a means of preventing the development or the continuance of con-


ditions that may give rise to ill health in later life.
Therefore, I ask the House to picture the midwife, the doctor and the specialist working together as a team. They will work under the general administration, guidance and oversight of the medical officer of health. His advice will be available to the doctor and the patients if any difficulty arises as to machinery or procedure. The scheme is founded on co-operation between the doctor and the midwife. It arises naturally out of the existing conditions in Scotland. But it is not necessarily the only method of ensuring an efficient maternity service. It may be desirable, as a result of experience, to modify the arrangements that I am now asking the House to assent to. It is true that the Scottish practice is for the confinement to be attended by a doctor, so we think it right that at any rate in the initial stages the general practitioners should be given a chance to show that the confidence placed in them is justifiable. We hope that with the arrangements of the midwife service and the advice of highly qualified specialists at call the doctor will not be required to go beyond minor assistance. It has been said that part of the high mortality rate in Scotland is in fact due to over-anxiety on the part of the medical man. The tendency perhaps has been to hurry the operations of nature. Confinement is not to be regarded as an operation in which the doctor has the whole work and responsibility, but as a natural event which he should supervise and guide if necessary, but one in which the patient is certainly going to play far and away the major part.
The local authority arrangements of the Bill I must deal with next. The arrangements that the local authorities will be required to make for providing this service will be subject to the approval of the Department of Health. That is set out in the first Clause. The local authorities in the first place commented rather adversely on that proposal, complaining that they were being put under the control of the Department of Health. I wish to make it clear that that is not so. These provisions are inserted in the Bill to ensure that not merely the Department of Health but, through the Department, the Minister, and through the Minister this House, can continue to keep an eye on the working out of these

provisions. If the arrangements were left solely to the local authorities the Minister would have the defence that the responsibility was solely that of the local authorities and that he could not interfere. It should be possible to raise the matter administratively on what is the most sensitive point of all for a Minister, that of his salary, when the Estimates come before the House, and to ask whether in fact the arrangements which are being carried out are the most effective to bring about the desired result.

Mr. T. Johnston: Is the right hon. Gentleman wedded to the exact form of words to be found in Sub-section (2) of Clause 1?

Mr. Elliot: No, I have had discussion with the local authorities on this point, more particularly with the Glasgow Corporation, who suggested that they could with advantage modify these words. I have said that I would be most glad to have an Amendment drafted by them. It has been drafted by them and put up not only by the Corporation but, I believe, by the Corporation after consultation with some of the other great local authorities, and I am prepared to accept that Amendment substantially in the form in which it has been drafted. There will, of course, be elasticity for the local authorities in making their arrangements, because certain areas, such as the Highlands and Islands, have difficulties with regard to communications which will have to be taken into account. For the service of midwives it will be open to the local authorities to arrange with the voluntary associations which employ midwives or to arrange with midwives engaged on private work, or themselves to establish a salaried service of midwives. Before submitting the proposals to the Department the local authorities are required to consult the voluntary associations which employ or are willing to employ mid-wives in their areas, to consult with any organisation which has the right to speak for the midwives practising in an area. That is only reasonable. In fact very strong representations have been made to me on behalf of these voluntary associations. It is only reasonable that they should be taken fully along with this great effort, because they have rendered great service in the past.
The remuneration of midwives is, of course, a vital question for the midwives-


themselves. But those are points which will arise for discussion in Committee. I think it is inevitable that when the scheme comes into full operation the handy woman will disappear from the scene in Scotland. I think that it is true that the, number of midwives in practice will be reduced by the operation of the provisions for compensation on retirement. Moreover, the midwives engaged by the local authorities will be paid either by those authorities, or by their own associations and will no longer have the not uncommon experience of rendering services for which they receive no fee. In fact the future holds for midwives brighter prospects of a reasonable livelihood than they have had before. When the full service is in operation it is clear that there will be quite a number of midwives who will not be absorbed into it. These cannot all make a living now. It is provided in the Bill that if a midwife gives up a certificate within three years after the Bill has passed she will receive as compensation three years' income, calculated on the average for the previous three years. Many midwives remain in practice after they have really become unfit, and in those cases the local authorities are empowered to call upon the midwife to surrender her certificate, subject to a right of appeal to the Department, and such midwives will receive five times their average income calculated on the previous three years.
The local authorities will be free to select their own types of arrangement for securing the medical services, so long as those services are adequate. In some areas the local arrangement will be with all the medical practitioners in those areas who are willing to undertake the service. In other areas the ante-natal and postnatal examinations may be carried out at the authorities' clinics, and arrangements may be made with all the practitioners or with a limited number. In such a case the arrangement will be to secure that the doctor attending the confinement will be advised of the results of the examination which has been carried out before.
Now I will come to the question of the mothers themselves. How far are expectant mothers likely to avail themselves of this service? The service is offered; it is not thrust upon anyone; it is not compulsory. But we do expect

it to be taken advantage of generally. The fees will be graded according to the ability of the patient to pay, and no fees will be charged in the case of the necessitous mother. In the case of insured women, the wives of insured men, and women in a similar economic position, it is hoped that the financial arrangements will enable local authorities to provide a complete range of service at home at a fee not much, if at all, higher than is at present payable for the services of a midwife alone. This provision will enable women to authorise payment to the local authority out of the maternity benefit due to them under the National Health Insurance Act.
I have received representations upon that point, for there are views held both for and against this proposal. While I prefer the proposal in the Bill, I shall have an open mind on the subject and shall be prepared to listen to arguments for and against on the Committee stage. I do not think that anyone will expect me to go further than that at present. I would only say again that this is not a party matter, because there are views in favour of the money being paid to the local authorities strongly held by hon. Members on all sides of the House. I do not think that the maternity services will achieve the maximum effectiveness without the fullest cooperation of the mothers themselves. I have already stated how necessary is the fullest co-operation between all the team who will be working to assist the mother.
The finance of this Measure is as follows. Where the local authority makes arrangements with midwives in private practice, or has taken midwives into its employment, the fees and salaries will be fixed and paid by the authority. If arrangements are made with voluntary asociations for the services of midwives in the employment of the latter, the payment to be made to the association by the local authority will be a matter for negotiation between those bodies. The payment for services rendered by the doctors will be made by the local authorities in accordance with scales fixed by the local authorities after consultation with the appropriate organisations of doctors. It is not easy to forecast how much the improved service which we contemplate will add


to the present expenditure of local authorities on maternity services. On a rough estimate, when the new services are in full operation the additional expenditure, after taking account of the fees recovered, may reach £120,000 per annum. When the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, was passed the percentage grant was replaced by a block grant. It was also stated in the Act that, in the event of material additional expenditure being imposed on local authorities by the initiation of a new service, Parliament will provide further money in respect of that service. Clause 3 of the Bill gives effect to this clear intention and proposes a grant equivalent, approximately, to half the total additional expenditure of the authority.
I have had representations from certain local authorities that the sum proposed is not sufficient, but that goes without saying. They also represent that the intention of Parliament in passing the Act has not been fulfilled; and certain local authorities are not satisfied with the proposed method of distribution of the sums. The arrangements are set out in Clause 3. They are that the grant to each authority will be half the estimated additional expenditure and will be scaled up and down in proportion to the need of the area determined by the weighted population under the formula of the 1929 Act. Certain authorities complained that they were not satisfied with the treatment they had received. I hope that the proposal I make will seem reasonable to the local authorities. I shall be prepared to move an Amendment that the Bill should not come into operation until the day after the third fixed period begins, that is to say, 16th May, which is he day after the new block grants have begun to run. I have hopes from my discussions with local authorities that the proposals which we have submitted to them with regard to the amount of, and the weighted formula for, the new block grants will enable us to reach agreement with them. Therefore, if we calculate the grants under this Bill on the formula to which, as I say, I hope the local authorities will agree, and if we bring the Bill into operation the day after the beginning of the grant period for which Parliament will have provided an increased sum for these services, I hope the local authorities which made these representations will feel that both in the spirit

and in the letter we have done our best to meet them.

Mr. N. Maclean: Will that not necessitate an Amendment of this Bill when it becomes an Act, because the formula in it is the formula that appears in the 1929 Act?

Mr. Elliot: I am advised that it can be done simply by saying that these things shall begin to run from the commencement of the Bill. The commencement, as the Bill stands at present, will be from the date when it receives the Royal Assent, but if we put in a fixed date it will run from that date. It would be anomalous if we allowed the financial and other calculations to depend on the arbitrary date on which the Bill receives the Royal Assent. It might be in the last block grant period or in the new block grant period. It might be according to the old formula if it received the Royal Assent before the third fixed grant period begins, while if it were delayed a few days it would be under the new formula. I do not think that important things like that should depend on a casual factor such as the date of the Royal Assent. Therefore, I hope to put a fixed date in the Bill, and I am sure that it will be more satisfactory to the House and the local authorities.
The local authorities will also receive Exchequer help in the amount of their liability for compensation of midwives who retire. That, of course, is a transitory liability limited to three years following the commencement of the Bill. In all cases one-half the compensation paid during that period will be borne by the Exchequer. There are, of course, a great number of points that will arise in the discussion of this Bill, but they are more points for discussion in Committee. For instance, the Universities and teaching institutions are concerned about the cases which will be available for the training of medical students and women in midwifery. Provision is included in the Bill that the local authorities and the Department, in exercising their functions, shall have regard to the desirability of maintaining facilities for teaching. The approved societies have expressed approval of the Bill, although some of them are a little apprehensive about some aspects of Sub-section (2) of Clause 2 dealing with the voluntary power to pay


over a proportion or the whole of maternity benefit.
I hope that we shall be able to pass this Bill as soon as may be to the Committee stage. I have taken a little longer than my ideal time of 15 to 20 minutes, which experience shows is just the time that either Ministers or Members should take in discussion. I apologise to the House for having over-run my time very briefly. I will content myself with saying that it is not for lack of interest in the subject or of a desire to place it fully before the House and the country that I have curtailed by remarks to the business aspects of the question. Anyone who, like myself, has had some training in the practical aspect of this problem cannot help feeling that it is one of the most important which the House can consider, or in which the public health services can assist. Anything that we can do to forward the object which this Bill has in view will, I am sure, not be time wasted or labour lost.

4.26 p.m.

Mr. Johnston: We on this side of the House approach this Measure with sympathy, but our duty, naturally, is to apply our minds to a critical examination of many of the details. We trust that on the Committee stage the reasonable and persuasive attitude which the right hon. Gentleman has adopted to-day will be in evidence when he comes to examine our proposed Amendments. I am sure from past experience that that will be the case. I am glad that he did not attempt any facetious references to Sairey Gamp, and so on. The Sairey Gamps have really long disappeared from our health services in Scotland. Many undeserved epithets have been thrown at the "howdies" and the midwives in Scot-land, but those epithets will, I am sure, find no place in the discussions which take place here and upstairs. While by the sheer force of circumstances the right hon. Gentleman and the Government are being driven to make proposals in the direction of Socialism, they cannot help themselves—

Sir Samuel Chapman: It is social reform.

Mr. Johnston: It is Socialism, as I hope to show in a few moments. I know that that word stinks in the nostrils of the hon. Gentleman—

Sir S. Chapman: I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman means. I have used the phrase "social reform" for 50 years on platforms. I have always been a social reformer, and I am glad to hear my right hon. Friend introduce this Bill.

Mr. Johnston: I wish the hon. Gentleman well in his missionary progress towards the proposals which we on this side have been returned here to promote. I am sure that he is going into the Lobby to-day to vote for a municipal medical service under public authority, with mid-wives paid by public authority, and to secure a public health service among our women which could not be secured by the individualist effort which he has supported in the past. I desire, if I can, to avoid controversial matters. I am certain of this, that there will be general agreement that this Bill is rendered necessary by the remorseless development of the social conscience in recent years in Scotland.
The right hon. Gentleman said, quite truly, that we had a very high maternal mortality rate, but he did not explain why we were 15 per cent, worse than in England, nor did he seek to explain why also, in a model area in London, instead of having a death-rate of six per thousand, as we have in Scotland, they have got it down to 0.68. Nevertheless we welcome this Measure, and it goes very much further in the direction of Socialism than the corresponding Measure recently passed by this House for England. It is not only maternal mortality to which we have to pay attention here. In Edinburgh they followed up maternal cases after the women had left the clinics supposedly cured, and they discovered that there were 30 per cent, of those cases of women who had serious illness and remained seriously ill for long periods after they had been discharged from the clinics, so that we are facing not only a mortality rate of six per thousand, but also a very high sickness rate arising from our maternity arrangements.
I have said that we are laying the foundations of a new municipal service in midwifery, and I was very glad to see that the chief medical officer in Glasgow. Dr. MacGregor, was one of the signatories to the Minority Report on the Scottish Health Service, which declared that he was prepared to go very much further even than this Bill goes. He was not


only prepared to have municipal mid-wives, but he was prepared to have a complete medical service with doctors and midwives in the employment of the local authority. We have not got that length yet, but the right hon. Gentleman has given us in this Bill at least municipal specialists to deal with the difficult cases, where there is an arrangement made to have hospital treatment for such cases; and with the exception of municipal doctors we have got pretty nearly everything in this Bill that we have been asking for in recent years.
A great deal, however, will depend—I hope that the Lord Advocate, who, I understand, is to wind up the Debate, will give particular attention to this point—upon the character of the Regulations which the Department is going to insist upon. It is all very well to say that the Department shall require an agreed scheme, but what is in the Government's mind as to what they intend to import into these Regulations? For example, we know that there are already two authorities in Scotland which run a most efficient system of home helps, but there is nothing about home helps in this Bill. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman and the Department intend to include home helps in the Regulations. If so, we shall be most delighted to hear it, but the right hon. Gentleman and the Government must really consider whether they are dealing effectively and completely with the maternity service if they are not going to provide for the necessities of a household when the mother is taken away, for example, to an institution for a lying-in period, leaving a young family perhaps to the care of a neighbour and the mother worried when she is away. Unless some provision is made in the nature of home helps, as they are called, I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman will not get the same ready acceptance of his offer to the women of Scotland to go for their lying-in periods into hospitals that he would otherwise get. I trust that the Lord Advocate, when he replies, will give us some indication of the Government's view upon that point.
There is another question that causes us on these benches very considerable concern. There is nothing here, of course, about malnutrition, but we know that Sir George Newman has laid it down that in his expert opinion every woman

who is going to have a baby should have prescribed for her two pints of milk per day, an adequate cheese diet, an adequate supply of butter, fresh eggs, fresh fish, a supply of liver, and fruit and vegetables. That is the expressed opinion of the highest medical authority of the Department in England, and it is not a partisan view taken on these benches. What provision is going to be made in the Regulations for seeing that women—and unfortunately many of them are becoming under-nourished from long periods of poverty and underfeeding—are provided with the nutrition necessary to a mother in child bearing, so that the child, if not the mother, shall be given a chance from the date of its birth to grow up into a healthy and efficient citizen? It has been said, and I think it is justified, that motherhood is the most dangerous trade in the country. There is more sickness and mortality in it than there is in coalmining, and if that be so, surely the right hon. Gentleman, who, as he said in his closing statement, has himself some experience as a medical man, will agree that it is right and proper that the Scottish Standing Committee or this House this afternoon should consider whether or not we should insist upon having in the Regulations guarantees that the woman who is giving birth to a child shall be adequately nourished during that dangerous and difficult period.
There are one or two questions arising out of the Clauses of the Bill on which we should like some further explanation. The right hon. Gentleman told us that he was going to consult existing voluntary associations. I suppose that that is necessary in many rural parts of the country. These voluntary associations have grown up over a period of years, and some of them are efficient, and I think it is right and proper that they should be consulted, but I do not understand this point. In Subsection (9) of Clause 1, the Lord Advocate will find that when a new scheme is authorised by the Department and amendments have to be made in the scheme, neither voluntary associations nor any other body need be consulted at all. They are not mentioned in the Sub-section though they are mentioned in other parts of the Bill in the initial stages. When we consider how highly important it is that at any rate in the early stages of this Measure we should have the good will and


hearty co-operation of everyone, I think the right hon. Gentleman ought not to lay his Measure open to criticism such as might arise on this Sub-section.
Now I come to another difficulty that we have. It says in Clause 1 that the period during which there shall be domiciliary treatment by a midwife is to be only the lying-in period. Why is that? In the English Bill a period of 10 days was prescribed as the minimum, but in this Measure, for some reason that I cannot understand, the domiciliary treatment is to be for not less than the lying-in period.

Mr. George Griffiths: It is 14 days in England.

Mr. Johnston: Well, I leave that point with the Lord Advocate. The right hon. Gentleman, when he came to the question of finance, said that he hoped the local authorities would be satisfied with his promise that this Bill would not be operative until after 16th May of this year, by which date the new block grants would be in operation. But what is happening here? As a result of the new block grants which the local authorities think they are getting, there is already a cut-in projected to some extent. I recollect that when the English Bill was going through the Minister of Health was able to give specific figures as to what each local authority was likely to be burdened with as a result of the Bill—he gave percentages—but the only Scottish figure that I have been able to ascertain with any degree of certainty is in regard to Edinburgh. I am told that, as the Bill now stands, with all this formula about weighted percentages, population, and all the rest of it, Edinburgh is entitled to get only about 27 per cent, of her expenditure from the national Treasury. It may be that under the block grants she will get more. Under the revised system, and if the Bill does not come into operation until after 16th May, will Edinburgh be guaranteed that she will get 50 per cent, of her expenditure?

Mr. Elliot: No. I should not like to mislead the right hon. Gentleman or the House. I think that actually, on the percentage of the expenditure, the percentage would not be increased. It might be very slightly diminished under the new formula; but what I say is that the new

formula must be taken in conjunction with the new grants, which will in fact very substantially increase the resources open to all local authorities. As for the fact that some local authority may get less, that is true, but it is in order that some other local authority in much greater need may get more, and I am sure that we should all agree to that. This is a distribution of the money available according to the needs of the population.

Mr. Johnston: Could we have a White Paper or a statement printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT in answer to an arranged question, showing what each local authority in Scotland may receive as a percentage of its expenditure after the new block grant system is in operation? I do not think it is unreasonable to ask for that.

Mr. Elliot: I could do that as soon as the block grant and the weighted formula have been agreed with the local authorities. At present those matters are in negotiation, and it will not be possible to submit a statement showing what they will get until the percentages have been agreed with the local authorities. As soon as that is done I should be glad to submit it, but I am afraid I could not give a date for it. [Interruption.] In the case of some local authorities it will be considerably more than half, and in the case of other local authorities it will not be so much, because the money which otherwise would have gone to them will go to more needy authorities.

Mr. Johnston: Some local authorities will not get half?

Mr. Elliot: That is so.

Mr. Walker: We understand the Minister to mean that the total cost in Scotland will be met as to the extent of one-half by the Exchequer, but that the one-half may be distributed in a varying ratio among the local authorities?

Mr. Elliot: That is so.

Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew: Surely that does not make any difference to the explanation given in the paragraph on the top of page iii of the Memorandum, where it says:
Under this arrangement the grants will range from about 90 per cent, of the additional expenditure in the case of the poorest areas to about 27 per cent, in the case of the richest areas.

Mr. Elliot: No, it does not alter that; it is a perfectly correct explanation, but there may be a slight variation on account of the operation of the new weighted formula, which may not be the same as the old weighted formula. The operation of the new weighted formula will be, on the whole, to give greater advantage to the densely populated areas and the sparsely populated areas and the poor areas than to the richer areas, and I am sure that would be the desire of everyone in the House.

Mr. Johnston: The only point I am making is that we are in the greatest difficulty in understanding what is happening. I am anxious that every local authority should be encouraged to operate this Measure, and if after May they discover that instead of getting what they anticipated they are to receive very much less, and are eating into their share of the new block grant, there may be an attitude of mind which will tend to diminish operations under the Act.

Mr. Elliot: As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Bute (Sir C. MacAndrew) has said, the explanation on page 3 of the Memorandum is substantially the explanation. I agree that nothing could be worse than that there should arise among the local authorities any feeling of bad faith. After these proposals were made the local authorities made certain representations to me. I have not been able to meet those representations along the lines on which they would wish me to meet them. I have met them in another way which, it is possible, may not meet with their approval, but I do not think any suggestion of bad faith will arise, because that explanation on page 3 shows that the grants will range from about 90 per cent, in the case of the poorest areas—and that may be altered—to about 27 per cent, in the case of the richest areas—and that may be altered. It may be as low as 26 per cent. But the grant will amount in total to approximately one-half of the cost of the new service in each year.

Mr. Johnston: I do not wish to pursue this rather difficult subject, but, to the best of my knowledge and belief, as the Bill now stands, without the added complications about the new block grant, Edinburgh imagines she is getting 27 per cent, of her additional expenditure, and

not 50 per cent. I trust that before we come later to this Clause we shall have an adequate explanation of what every local authority is likely to get.
I turn to the question of midwives. In the English Measure there was an alternative pension system. Insead of saying that a midwife who surrenders her certificate will get a certain number of years' pension or, if she does not surrender it, or is discharged, will get another number of years' pension—which is to be the case in Scotland—I understand that in the English measure there was the alternative of an annuity system, giving a guaranteed payment for life to a midwife who gives up or retires.

Sir C, MacAndrew: The hon. Member will see that that is provided for in Clause 4 (4)—at line 25, on page 7 of the Bill.

Mr. Johnston: I am afraid I must have missed that. I will leave that point. Another point is that some midwives complain that the periods chosen for the calculation of their pension or gratuity were abnormal periods and unfair to them, and they ask the Government to consider making it a flat rate of five years, instead of three years in one set of cases and five years in another. A woman who has been removed from the roll of midwives and continues to act as a nurse to women in childbirth is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £10 if she receives any remuneration for acting as a nurse. I suggest to the Lord Advocate that the words "receives any remuneration" might be struck out. Remuneration may be furnished in other ways than by payments in hard cash, and if we want to make the system watertight it might be advisable to delete those words. I have exceeded my time and do not wish to stand in the way of other hon. Members who wish to discuss this matter. I can only say that we on these benches welcome the purpose of the Measure and think that on the whole it provides a basis upon which future Governments, or even this Government, may build in creating better standards of medical attention for our people. It has been a reproach to us in Scotland that our death rate should be higher than the death rate in other parts of the land, and any steps which this or any other Government can


take to better the health of our people will have the greatest possible support from the Members on these benches.

4.54 p.m.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: I should like, in the first place, to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on bringing forward this useful Measure, and to express the gratitude which I feel exists in every part of the House for the interesting speech in which he explained it to us. I was glad that he emphasised the naturalness of the condition of pregnancy and of the function of child bearing. It is one of the disadvantages of the efforts which we have to make to mobilise public opinion on this, as on other social problems, that the facts and figures which we have to bring out into the light of day may tend to create an atmosphere which the right hon. Gentleman described as one of dread, but I hope his speech and the passage of this Bill will do much to dissipate that atmosphere, and to give to the mothers of Scotland the assurance that they will have the support of efficient maternity services to help them through the time of their trial. The need for such services is clear. Maternal mortality in Scotland is not diminishing, and when we quote the figures of maternal mortality we are far from exhausting the evils to which the present conditions give rise; because apart from those who unhappily lose their lives, there are those who suffer from illness and prolonged ill-health and disability. Moreover, although the figures of infant mortality are going down it is an unfortunate fact that infant mortality among children of only one week old has shown a slight tendency to rise. I think all these facts prove clearly the need for such a Measure.
If a Measure is good I am not concerned with whether the right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) chooses to affix the label "Socialist" to it or not. I was amused at his efforts to affix this label to the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir S. Chapman) and at the hon. Member's sensitiveness in resisting the operation. It seemed to me that both hon. Members were a little out-of-date. Their political reflections have only matured to the point which my party reached some 40 or 50 years ago, when Sir William Harcourt said in

this House "We are all Socialists now." It is just as possible for a sturdy individualist to advocate, to demand, such a reasonable measure of social organisation as this, as it is for a right hon. Gentleman, without having any aspersions cast upon his sincerity as a Socialist, to stand up for the liberty of the subject when he thinks it has been invaded by the action of the executive, as a certain right hon. Gentleman did in a still well remembered speech in this House some years ago. In the same way we should be able to support a measure of social reform without having aspersions cast on the consistency of our individualism.

Mr. Johnston: The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for interrupting, but I think this is necessary for his political education. Will he not believe me when I say that the contract he has just made is at least 40 years out of date?

Sir A. Sinclair: That tu quoque does not help the right hon. Gentleman, because I have pointed out that we had reached that stage of education 40 or 50 years ago. He does not dissent from my argument as to the possibility of combining the principles of individual liberty with social organisation, and it is a fact that my political forerunners found no political difficulty in doing so 40 or 50 years ago. If this Measure is good, and it is, I do not care what political label may be affixed to it, let us judge it on its merits; and I think it is fairly clear from the attitude displayed in all quarters of the House that Scottish Members have made up their minds to welcome it.
The right hon. Gentleman truly said that one vital aspect of the problem of improving our maternity services would be the raising of the remuneration and the improvement of the conditions and status of the midwives of Scotland; that, of course, was one of the recommendations both of the report on Maternal Morbidity and Mortality in Scotland and of the Committee on Scottish Health Services, which reported last year. It is true that machinery is provided for raising the remuneration and improving the status and conditions of service of the midwives, but the right hon. Gentleman did not give us very much indication of how and when that was to be done. I hope that he will be able to give us very clear assurances and an indication that it will be the deliberate policy of his Department in administering the Bill.
There is a question which I would like to put to him. I observe from the Memorandum which accompanies the Bill that the estimated cost of the scheme is £120,000. As we are told that the Government will be paying 50 per cent, of the cost of the scheme, that means that the total cost of the scheme to the Government and the local authorities will be about £240,000. Would the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House why this scheme is to cost so much less than the scheme which was adumbrated for the maternity services in the report of the Committee on Scottish Health Services? That Committee worked out a scheme, the total cost of which was to be some £310,000, as the right hon. Gentleman will see if he refers to page 290, recommendation (5). Perhaps he would give the House some indication of the difference between the provisions of the scheme of the Bill as compared with the scheme of that Committee, and the reasons why the cost is now estimated at a substantially smaller figure.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the difference of opinion which has been aroused over the proposal in Subsection (2) of Clause 2 of the Bill, that a mother may be permitted to pay her maternity benefit to the local authority. There is no such provision, of course, in the English Measure, but the suggestion is not necessarily the worse for that. We ought to take our own view of the problem and consider it on its merits. Nevertheless, it is a fact that in the English Measure, which was very carefully considered during its passage through this House, no such provision was included, and I therefore suggest that we should scrutinise the present proposals very carefully. The cash benefit is of immense importance to the poor mother, and is not, and never was, intended to be given entirely to the doctor and the midwife; it was always intended that some part of it should be available for the mother herself. I was very glad that the right hon. Gentleman indicated that he was going to preserve an open mind and listen to argument on this question, because I feel a certain amount of doubt about the proposal. In his speech the right hon. Gentleman asked this question: How far are expectant mothers likely to avail themselves of this service? That is a vital question. May it not be that if they are to be subjected to pressure from the

local authorities to give up their maternity benefit they may be reluctant to avail themselves of the provisions of the Bill? Therefore we should consider very carefully the pros and cons of this proposal. It might be a wise provision that only half of the benefit could be transferred to the local authority, if the mother authorised that to be done.
There is one more point of detail, on which I do not want to say much, because it is a little outside the scheme of the Bill, but it is important in connection with maternity services; it is hospital accommodation. Not only the Committee on Scottish Health Services but also the report on Maternal Morbidity and Mortality in Scotland, on which report we are told the Bill is based, referred to the great importance of the provision of better hospital facilities. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether this aspect of the problem is being dealt with at the same time as we are passing this Measure?
One last word, and that on finance. I was glad to hear the assurances of the Secretary of State that the new formula for the block grant would give substantial advantages both to the areas with congested populations and to the sparsely populated areas like the Highlands of Scotland. Unless that assurance turns out to be true in generous measure, it will be very difficult to make any progress with the Bill in the Highlands. The report of the Committee on Scottish Health Services which came out last year made a very strong point, first of all of the remarkable efficiency of the medical services of the Highlands and Islands, which they regarded as a pattern for services under similar conditions, and also of the inadequacy of the funds at the disposal of local authorities for the maintenance and development of their statutory health services. They made a recommendation to which we in the Highlands attach very great importance:
A special supplementary grant of £50,000 a year (in addition to the other grants for Scotland as a whole, including the Highlands and Islands), should be made available for the improvement of local authority health services in the Highlands and Islands and for their co-ordination with the services 
provided under the Highlands and Islands Medical Service Grant Acts.
I would ask the Lord Advocate or the Secretary of State whether the Government have considered that recommendation and propose to give effect to it. Unless some such provision is made or unless the new formula for the block grant, by which funds to be provided under the Bill are to be distributed, turns out to be fully as generous as was indicated by the Secretary of State to us this afternoon, I am afraid that this Measure will remain a dead letter in the Highland counties of Scotland. I hope, therefore, that some reassurance may be given to me and to other Highland Members on those financial points. Subject to that, and to the other small reservations which I have made, I desire to assure the Secretary of State of my strong support for the Measure.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. Graham Kerr: I think everyone in the House heard with as much interest as I did the very clear exposition from the Minister of this extremely important Bill. As one of the representatives of Scottish Universities, I can assure him that the Measure will receive a very generous and very cordial welcome. There will be many points of detail which will have to be considered in Committee, and in addition, there appears to be one point of such fundamental importance that it merits the consideration of the House. Whereas the Bill has for its main purpose the improvement of domiciliary midwifery in Scotland, I have the assurance of many of those who are best qualified to speak on that subject that unless the Bill is amended in one particular respect, it will bring about, not improvement, but actual deterioration in the domiciliary midwifery of Scotland.
The Minister brought out very clearly what he regards, and what Scottish authorities in general regard, as the ideal system, namely, that every confinement should have at its disposal a team of three workers. There should be, first of all, the medical adviser of the patient to whom she is accustomed; then, during the critical period before and after the birth, she should have a highly qualified midwife in attendance. Finally, in case of emergency or of abnormality, there should be available the skilled specialist and obstetrician. We are all aware that many of our friends, including some distinguished obstetricians, look forward to

the day when all midwifery cases will be treated in hospital, but that is not yet a matter of practical politics. Further, we have no convincing evidence that it would be an advantage in the present state of knowledge. I would certainly hesitate to put before the House anything in the way of statistics. Before now I have warned the House of our experience in biology that statistics can be extraordinarily misleading. There happens to be in this particular case some statistical information that is at least free from one of the great sources of fallacy in statistics, namely, the volume of the data on which they are based.
In 1933 there was published in New York a report upon the mortality in connection with confinement, and this report was based upon a total of 348,310 cases, a volume of data which I do not think the most pernickety statistician would consider insufficient. It showed that, of the cases dealt with in these splendidly equipped hospitals, the death rate was 4.5 per 1,000, whereas in the case of confinements in the patients' own homes the death rate was 1.9 per 1,000. Here, again, however, there is an important disturbing factor which warns us against taking these figures at anything like their apparent value, because, of course, in the hospitals at the present day you find a far greater proportion of abnormal cases, with particular dangers attached to them, than occurs among the cases not so treated. Therefore, I do not for a moment ask the House to take these particular statistical data at their obvious apparent value, but we are quite safe in taking them, with a great mass of similar evidence from elsewhere, as justifying us in saying that the day is not yet ripe, or anything near it, for the treatment of midwifery cases in general in hospitals.
The overwhelming majority of cases to-day are, of course, domiciliary cases, and I may say, speaking as a biologist, that to a biologist it would appear that to-day no more important task faces our society than the improvement of our domiciliary midwifery to the very highest possible level. When we consider the matter from that point of view, we cannot but remember one consideration that transcends everything else in importance, and that is the ensuring of the most efficient training that is possible in midwifery, for the midwife on the one hand and for the budding medical practitioner


on the other. I have representations from the Scottish Universities and from the great maternity hospitals of Scotland to the effect that the present Bill fails to ensure this. The University of Aberdeen says:
This omission will in the long run defeat the whole object of the Bill.
The Glasgow Maternity Hospital, the largest of its kind in the country, and, incidentally, the largest training centre for midwives in Great Britain, says this:
If the Bill in its present form is passed, the effect may be to wreck the outdoor or domiciliary service of the hospital, which is absolutely essential for the training of students and midwives.
Again, the Dundee Maternity Hospital, an admirably equipped and efficient institution, which during last year was responsible for over 50 per cent, of the births registered in the city of Dundee, says, in reference to the adequate training of midwives:
It appears to the directors of this hospital that the Bill as drafted would ultimately fail to achieve this result, since, through the destruction of the present system for their training, the number of properly qualified midwives would inevitably decrease, or, alternatively, the standard of their training would be bound to suffer.
These are strong words. I suppose that most of us here are not inclined to attach too great weight to words simply because they are strong; it depends upon by whom the strong words are uttered; and the words I have quoted are uttered by some of those who are most competent in Scotland to utter expressions of opinion.
To come, in conclusion, to the practical point with regard to these remarks, what appears to be required in this connection, in order to carry out the main purpose of the Bill, is the addition of a new Clause which will render more precise the general instructions to local authorities to provide certified midwives, by ensuring that the means will remain available for their adequate training. It is not sufficient to say, as the Bill at present does in Sub-section (8) of Clause 1, that the local authority shall have regard
to the desirability of maintaining any facilities
and so on. I have not the least doubt that every local authority has full regard to the desirability of training, say, embryo surgeons in the facts of human anatomy, on which the whole of their practice of surgery is based; and, every local

authority will agree as to the desirability of maintaining facilities for the training of surgeons; but those of us who have been in touch with medical teaching are well aware of the fact that the very greatest obstacles have been laid in the way of providing those facilities. It seems to me, therefore, that it will be essential that there should be added to the Bill, and I hope that we may perhaps hear from the Lord Advocate presently that the Government will agree to add a Clause worded in this way:
In every area where there is a recognised medical school the local authority of that area and the Department of Health shall take steps to secure that adequate facilities are made available for the practical domiciliary instruction in midwifery of any person undergoing training with a view to becoming a duly qualified medical practitioner or a certified midwife.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. Leonard: The commendation that has already been expressed is entirely in accordance with my opinion with regard to the Bill. I appreciate that it is rather comprehensive in its scope, and while, perhaps, criticism may be directed towards it, I think I can agree with others that it is a step in the right direction. I shall not enter into any comments as to its being long overdue; it is sufficient for me that the Bill is here, and we are going to make the best that we possibly can of it. With regard to the scope of the Bill, I think it is well summed up in the four paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Subsection (2) of Clause 1, which indicate the matters with which the Bill is expected to deal; but I have received some observations from those competent to touch on the matter with regard to the application of these four points and to the power of the Department to determine how they may be applied. While I recognise that time is a most important factor, and that speed is desirable from the point of view of the mother, nevertheless the position as regards administration must be considered, and it seems to be advisable from all points of view that, in the application of the activities set out in these paragraphs, permission should be given to authorities to move in stages or in areas, since the smooth running of the administrative machine is perhaps as essential as the speed of application.
I have one or two points to make, and in making them I hope I shall not deal


with what the Secretary of State referred to as Committee points. I wish to deal specially with the provision made for consultation with bodies such as the Mid-wives' Association and voluntary organisations, and I want to say a word or two with regard to the proviso to Sub-section (3), that, where a voluntary organisation has been established for the purpose of co-ordinating the services provided by other voluntary organisations,, the coordinating organisation shall be consulted instead of the other organisations themselves. The only point I want to make is that I trust that, if the co-ordinating body is taken into consultation, there will be ample opportunity of ascertaining the views of the voluntary organisations whose work it is co-ordinating, on matters such as legislation, and that the voluntary bodies whose work it is co-ordinating will have within their structure avenues whereby the operative side, that is to say, the nurses working for the voluntary bodies, will be able to express their views.
I also notice that in Sub-section (5) provision is being made for consultation with any local organisation of medical practitioners, if any such local organisation exists. I have had certain statistics put before me with regard to the tendencies of doctors themselves, and it is no secret to say that a great number of doctors do not like to indulge, nor do they specialise in, this work. I was wondering whether it is not possible that, instead of consultation with a body of general practitioners, provision could be made that the consultations should be conducted with a panel of practitioners who have paid special attention to the subject. Sir George Newman said in 1933 that the expectant mother should become accustomed to a diet which includes ample milk—two pints a day—cheese, butter, eggs, fish, liver, fruit and fresh vegetables, which will supply her body with the essential elements. Such a statement cannot be placed on one side. I agree that expectant mothers may delay applying for the services contemplated in this Bill simply because of the need to use their money for services other than medical, and I urge that further consideration should be given to the possibility of providing free service at least for those within the field of Health Insurance.
Another point that perturbs me is that this of necessity creates the need for another form of means test. I should like to know whether the Minister has devised any formula to meet the question of need. What is the measure to be? Will there be a special formula brought into being for use on this occasion alone, or will some formulas which have been in use in order to determine need be used? The question of surrender of certificates and the compensation to be paid to mid-wives is connected with the question of administration. I am advised that Glasgow would prefer a five-year period from the point of view of administration alone. After all, it is possible that an authority might determine to indulge in a full-time midwifery service and, if that is the case, a large number will be required. I am aware that in maternity hospitals training is given to large numbers of probationary nurses or pupil midwives, but many of them will not be employed in this form of service. They are only there for the purpose of getting the certificate. So it will be desirable to extend the period of five years in order that the numbers will be available. In addition, it is desirable that the important matter of selection should have consideration in order that administration may be built up smoothly. With regard to the provision in Clause 6 prohibiting unqualified persons from giving service at birth or in the lying-in period, if it is true that that period has been extended from 10 to 14 days in the English Bill, I hope a similar alteration will be made in this Bill. I believe it is the general opinion of those competent to deal with the matter that on the tenth day certain difficulties arise which need to be intently watched.
There are two points which I have not yet heard mentioned. Persons working in certain institutions are exempt from any penalty if they act at a confinement. One such institution is a maternity home. There are maternity homes, some of them eminently respectable organisations, where there is no one qualified from the point of view of this Bill, except the matron, and I do not see why that should be allowed when penalties are imposed on people who are perhaps just as qualified as these nurses in maternity homes. The same applies to mental asylums. Why should it be necessary to make an exception in the case of births taking place


in a mental asylum? Surely anyone in that position is as much entitled to qualified attention as anyone else. With regard to Clause 7, I should like to ask, for the advantage of the City of Glasgow, whether those who attend refresher courses will incur expense, and whether the expense incurred in the provision of refresher courses will rank for grant under the financial arrangements of the Bill?
I am glad that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness dealt with the question of additional hospital accommodation. It may be required for antenatal and other purposes and it is a moot point whether this will receive any consideration in the Bill. I think it should receive consideration, if not in administration, at least in so far as capital charges are concerned. With regard to Clause 8, I should like to have some attention paid to the possibility of panels of doctors who specialise in midwifery work being consulted rather than general medical practitioners. The reluctance to employ women doctors is now a thing of the past. Not only women go to them, but there are men who prefer women doctors. I wonder whether it would be possible for women doctors to be brought into the consideration of this matter.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Allan Chapman: I hope that if I exceed my Scottish quarter of an hour the fact will be indicated to me in as polite a manner as possible. There is such an air of unanimity this afternoon that it is rather difficult to find anything to argue about with hon. Gentlemen opposite, which is very satisfactory and is the greatest compliment that could be paid to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The thing that stands out most in my mind is that the midwife is obviously the key to the success to the whole scheme, and I desire to touch on one or two points relating to the efficiency of midwives as affected by the Bill. In the first place, this question of compensation affects it. There are doubtless good reasons for having three years' compensation in the case of a volunteer relinquishing her certificate, but it seems to me that it is placing a penalty against efficiency. For this reason, that persons who ought to retire on grounds of age or infirmity, would get only three years' compensation if they volunteered to do so and, in the circumstances set out in the

Bill, they would be inspired to try to carry on for another year or two until they were pushed out by the local authorities, thus qualifying for five year grant. A lot of difficulty would be removed if the amount taken for compensation was the same. Another point about this question of the efficiency of midwives is that it is essential we should attract the very best type to what is virtually a new service, and, although there are doubtless good reasons why it has not been brought about, I should like to have seen a uniform system throughout the country where the pay, the terms of service, the age limit for retiring were the same, and there was some sort of superannuation scheme as well. With the certainty of well-paid employment you are more likely to get the best type of people going in for this important profession.
I was interested to learn that some of those nurses who have their C.M.B. certificate but are not practising midwifery are already working for corporations such as Glasgow, but there is a small danger here, it seems to me, although the Bill provides against it to a certain extent. I understand that a certificate from the Central Midwives Board does not necessarily make a perfect midwife. Doctors and others to whom I have talked say that it is a question of long experience of actual cases that makes the midwife. I hope, before even a trained nurse who holds a certificate is released to deal with this matter, she will have not only a course of training but a course of dealing with these cases under supervision. There is also a very important problem involved in this question of training. It is unfortunate that one section of the community supplies the main experience for these trainees, but hospitals exist mainly for the benefit of poor persons and it is natural that they should seek experience for their trainees amongst the people they serve.
I hope the Lord Advocate will be able to tell us, on this important point, which is causing great anxiety among Scottish hospitals, that some form of compromise has been reached. It is clear that extern training is of equal if not greater importance than intern training in view of the main object of this Bill. There must be a world of difference between dealing with an emergency in the ward


of a hospital where the experts are in the next room,; and dealing with an emergency in some unfortunate soul's back kitchen. Yet a person who would be very good within the hospital might be hopeless when faced with such an emergency. Therefore I support my hon. Friend very strongly on the point that the external training is extremely important, and urge that the difficulty should be met. It is my desire to see these mothers protected by requiring a certificated midwife always to be present when a trainee is handling a case, no exceptions being made. I think, then, there would be very little danger to the mother.
These observations are put in a spirit of inquiry, and I would not disturb the placid way in which this legislative child is being brought into the world this afternoon by following up the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston). I will leave his quip that we are on the road to Socialism, by saying that I do not regard Socialism and social progress as necessarily synonymous terms; not even when they were backed up by the jest of a Liberal statesman who made a remarkably inaccurate statement in this House over 40 years ago. I most heartily support the Bill, and believe that it is one of the most vital social Measures of our time. Quite apart from the more humanitarian side, if in the past every life has been precious, the trend of population being what it is, every life in the future becomes doubly precious. I join with hon. Gentlemen opposite in urging upon the Government Front Bench that there should be no false economy in this matter. The real wealth of the nation is its people. The urgent claims of other social services pale before this Measure, because it is one of the key Bills of social progress. I believe it will make a great deal of difference and trust it will make the statistics, which we have been reading from recent reports, look mediaeval in a few years' time.

5.48 p.m.

Sir Ernest Graham-Little: I regret to introduce perhaps a little element of disturbance in this placid atmosphere, but I think that an opportunity has been missed in framing the Clauses of this Bill. As the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. A. Chapman)

quite properly remarked, the key-note of the Bill is the midwifery service. As the Bill is said to rest upon the recommendations and authority of the very admirable report quoted in the Bill on Maternal Morbidity and Mortality in Scotland, it is a disappointment that the recommendations have not been more closely followed. I fear that there is a very considerable danger in regarding this Measure as a real contribution to the solution of a problem which has undoubtedly distressed and disturbed the medical profession more than any other problem of the present day. Maternal mortality is one of the very few domains of medicine in which the rate is increasing rather than diminishing. It is a very lamentable state of affairs, and no effort that can be made to bring about a solution of the causes of that mortality ought to be spared. What are the recommendations of this report? If hon. Members will turn to page 25 they will see that it is definitely stated that:
Ante-natal, intra-natal and post-natal supervision should be afforded by the same medical attendant; where this is impossible the ante-natal record should be readily and immediately available to the attendant at confinement.
If any progress has been made, or is to be made, in regard to this very terrible problem, it is in considering the circumstances which lead up to the confinement. Almost all the provisions of this Bill deal with intra-natal measures. That is too late. All the valuable time has been lost in the ante-natal period. What are the circumstances in the ante-natal period which are so important? Some of them have been stressed with great precision and propriety by Members on the Front Opposition Bench. There is no doubt at all that the nutrition of the expectant mother is one of the most important helps to her reasonably successful confinement. Some months ago an interesting lecture was given in which the mortality from maternity accidents in the Island of Lewis was reported, and the amazing fact emerged that the mortality in the Island of Lewis was less than the mortality in Paddington. The reasons suggested were that in the Island of Lewis, where there is a very small community, the feeding was stated to be relatively excellent, with fresh milk and food, and it made all the difference to maternal mortality. I do not think that


aspect of the question need be argued because it is universally accepted.
But there are other suggestions in regard to the ante-natal period. There are medical diseases which only a medical man can discover during that period. There are physical disabilities which only he can discover. It so happens that during this very week I have had personal knowledge of two cases of well-to-do families in which the expectant mother had, in both instances, been found some time before confinement to suffer from physical disability which necessitated the delivery of the child by what is called the Caesarean operation. Such conditions cannot be made clear unless care is taken in the investigation of cases before confinement. There are other causes such as cardiac and pulmonary disease, tuberculosis, and, of course, the most important of all, venereal disease. If you are to give the mother who is the victim of venereal disease any prospect of having a healthy child and a normal confinement treatment must take place quite early in pregnancy. If it is given throughout pregnancy there is every prospect of the confinement being normal and of the birth of a healthy child. That is proved by statistics, with which I will not trouble the House at the moment.
I would like to support the plea made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) for the provision of more maternity beds. That again, is one of the recommendations in this report which does not seem to have been touched upon at all in the Bill. It is a curious fact that mortality in well-conducted and scientifically -administered maternity homes has been very much less than confinements in the best circumstances at the homes of patients. I will give a concrete example from my own knowledge. Queen Charlotte's Hospital has been conducting in the past year a series of observations into the prospect of mitigating the mortality from that very terrible disease of puerperal fever. During that 12 months a new drug has been tried, and the remarkable result has followed, that the mortality has decreased from 22 per cent, to 2 per cent. That kind of knowledge or experiment can only be tried under very skilled observation and in well-equipped maternity institutions.
Another aspect of the Bill which I rather deprecate, and which has been so remarked upon by a previous speaker, is that it rather leaves the general medical practitioner out of the scheme. The colleges and universities have been very perturbed about the incidence of maternal mortality, and the General Medical Council a year or two ago circulated universities, which are principally responsible for the training of medical men, upon the enormous importance of increasing the opportunities for obtaining practical skill in London and elsewhere. Very elaborate changes have been suggested, and some have been made, in the medical curriculum to meet that need. If you diminish the sphere of activity of the general practitioner in this matter, you will diminish the urge for improvement in his education. I cannot help thinking that we are really approaching this matter from the wrong end. The real desideratum is to improve the scientific treatment of cases of impending disaster from maternal mortality, and it is from that angle we should approach it rather than from practically the last stage, that called the "intra-natal stage."
This report, which I cannot commend too highly, gives an indication of certain dangers which come from measures taken at the confinement itself by what is far too often the case, a relatively ill-equipped midwife. The tendency of the inexperienced person is to offer to do too much. Nothing is more disastrous than to do too much at a confinement. I was trained for part of my medical course at a great maternity hospital in Dublin, and it was the tradition and practice of the officers of that famous hospital to dissuade the medical student from interfering more than he could help. The real benefit of the ante-natal care is that it lessens the need to interfere. You know what is there long before the danger comes. It is from that point of view that I rather fear the danger of giving a false idea of security when no security exists. I would much rather spend far more money upon measures for the preparation and the preceding stages, and much less money on the actual operation of delivery, and make the operation of delivery a really normal physical process, which it ought to be, and which it very often is not. The real way of doing that is to prepare the patient beforehand, not


a day or so before, but weeks and months before. It is from that point of view that I think this Bill will be somewhat of a disappointment to the medical profession.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Guy: The intervention of an English Member and a doctor in the person of the hon. Member for London University (Sir E. Graham-Little) has presented a feature in the Debate which so far has been lacking. I should like to add my welcome to this very valuable Bill and my congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his very clear explanation of its objects. As regards the need for the Bill, there can be no doubt whatever. Reference has been made to the report on Maternal Morbidity and Mortality—a most valuable report. It brings out a state of affairs which calls for a great deal of thought and care, and demands progress and performance. We have been a long time waiting for the Bill. The period of gestation has been prolonged. The English Bill got its Second Reading on 30th April last year. I am relieved that the Scottish Bill has seen the light of day, and I think that it is better than the English Measure. It is definitely a better Bill in so far as it covers ground that the English Bill does not cover. I think my hon. Friend opposite did not do full credit to the place which is given in this Bill to the medical practitioner in combining his services with the midwife in cases of confinement.
I regard the Bill as a turning point in the campaign for dealing with the grievous maternal mortality. It is high time that we reached the point of effective action, because the preliminary part of the campaign in arousing public interest in this question did more harm than good. I am particularly glad that my right hon. Friend referred to the danger of creating an undue amount of alarm in the minds of expectant mothers. As has been said, the process of childbirth should be a normal physiological function, and now that it is known that steps are to be taken to provide greatly improved medical and midwifery services, a great amount of the apprehension that has been rather unfortunately aroused ought to be allayed.
There is one point which indicates the measure of the problem with which we

have to deal, and it was dealt with in the report to which I have referred, and that is the percentage of cases of maternal mortality which are avoidable. It is amazing—indeed, I go so far as to say that it is highly discreditable—that not less than 60 per cent, of the cases of mortality attributable to pregnancy are, in the opinion of the authors of the report, avoidable. In many cases it must be very difficult to apportion the blame. In some cases the fault rests with the patient, and in other cases, in fact in the larger proportion of cases, there has been some carelessness or some faulty diagnosis, perhaps some negligence on the part of either the midwife or attendant or the medical practitioner. It is because of the information which is now available, and in view of the fact that a proper scheme is to be elaborated for maternity services and I hope the training not only of nurses, and perhaps also of medical practitioners, that the maternal mortality will in due course be considerably diminished.
Reference has been made to ante-natal care. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for the London University that that is probably the most important field for improvement and reform. In this connection I discovered in the report on Maternal Morbidity and Mortality that the figures in regard to expectant mothers show that in a large number of cases the health of the mother was adversely affected by the pregnancy, particularly so in the case of the mothers who died. The figures show that there was about 84 per cent, of good health before the particular pregnancy started in the case of the mothers who survived, but in the case of the mothers who died at childbirth the percentage of good health before pregnancy was only 71 per cent. With regard to health during pregnancy there was 75 per cent, of cases of good health among the surviving mothers, but the good health during pregnancy of the mothers who died fell to 46 per cent. That clearly shows that health not only before pregnancy but during pregnancy is very important in regard to the question of maternal mortality. Therefore, everything that can be done to protect the health of the expectant mother will be a valuable contribution towards a solution of the problem. It is on those lines that the machinery to be set up by the Bill should be of very considerable importance.
I am sorry that the right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston), whose flippancy in describing this Bill as a Socialist Measure amused me and other hon. Members on this side of the House, is not in his place, because I should like to remind him that in Edinburgh nearly 100 years ago we had the skeleton of this public health service in the appointment of the first medical officer of health, at a time when the Socialist party had not appeared. The right hon. Gentleman raised the question of malnutrition. That is one of the few controversial questions in this particular field of inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman can get no support from the report on that particular point. Those concerned in that report considered the malnutrition question, and they state that, so far as they can find out, it is not a factor in maternal mortality, but that the question of diet is of prime importance. The question of qualitative rather than quantitative nutrition is of very great importance. In the case of necessitous mothers who are attending a clinic, they are, or they should be, provided with both milk and food.
I agree with what has been said as regards the necessity of improving the accommodation in maternity hospitals. The Bill does not deal with that point. The question of maternity hospitals, in particular in relation to those cases which require special treatment—operative treatment—must not be forgotten, and I hope that due provision will be made. There are two questions which I should like to put to the Lord Advocate. The first is in regard to the Scottish figures for maternal mortality which have been given as about six per thousand births, compared with the English figures of four per thousand. On the face of them the Scottish figures are 50 per cent, worse than the English figures, but I have been informed that those figures are not strictly comparable. Can the Lord Advocate say whether they are strictly comparable, and, if not, what deduction should be made from the Scottish figures? A further question is in regard to the training of nurses, maternity nurses in particular, which, if this Bill is to be a success, will have to be dealt with on up-to-date, scientific lines. Some time ago we had an excellent, well-informed and reasonable report from the Black Committee on the training of nurses. That report came out

before the report on the Scottish health services. Questions have been asked from time to time as to what are the views of the Scottish Office on that report. The time has now arrived when some decision should be taken. If consultations have taken place with the various nursing associations it is time that a decision was made. If there is to be a new scheme for the training of midwives and maternity nurses it should be launched and put into operation about the same time as the machinery of this Bill. I believe that when the Bill is in operation it will provide a very important contribution towards the solution of a grave social problem, and I wish it every success.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. Watson: I am very pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) claimed this as a small Socialist Measure. That statement created a little amusement on the other side of the House as well as on the Liberal benches, which are now empty. We were told by the right hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) that 40 years ago an eminent Liberal statesman said that we were all Socialists. We who are Socialists have always been of opinion that there are Socialists and Socialists, and we are not prepared to recognise members of the Liberal party or the Tory party as Socialists. If this Measure is not a Measure of that description, why has it not been brought in long ago? We might have had this necessary little measure of social reform in the days when we were assured that individualism was everything, that individual enterprise was all that was required and that the local authority should do as little as possible.
Here we are asking local authorities to do a very valuable service. I am pleased that the Measure has been received with such enthusiasm by hon. Members opposite. I am not going to examine it in detail; that can be done when we reach the Committee stage; but I was interested in the assurance of the Secretary of State that he has an open mind with regard to several points, and I hope we shall have that same open mind when we meet the right hon. Gentleman in the Standing Committee upstairs. Very frequently we get the assurance of an open mind on the Floor of the House, but when Amendments are moved in Committee the mind


of the Minister is usually closed on matters upon which we have had an assurance that he had an open mind. The right hon. Gentleman was more specific this afternoon and indicated several parts of the Bill upon which he was prepared to hear arguments. I hope he will be in the same mood in Committee.
It is not often that a Sassenach intervenes in these Debates, but I was pleased that the hon. Member for the London University (Sir E. Graham-Little) made his contribution. I was specially interested in his closing remarks. He asked that more attention should be given to women before the birth of a child than after. That is a very sensible view to take. In the Bill provision is made for local authorities to provide facilities on application being made for medical examination and treatment during pregnancy, and I hope it will mean that local authorities will see that the necessary nourishment is given to a woman where she requires it before the child is born. Unfortunately, in this country we have a considerable army of unemployed and also a large army of low-paid workers who really cannot afford to give that nourishment to their wives that is required before the birth of the child. Under this Measure it will be possible for local authorities not only to provide the medical examination which is necessary but also the treatment which will ensure the woman being built up physically before the child is born. From that point of view it is a most valuable Measure.
The hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Graham Kerr) rather feared that the Measure would have a detrimental effect upon hospitals and maternity homes. I do not share that view. I do not think it will have any adverse effect, but, on the contrary, that there will be a need for more maternity homes than we have already in Scotland. There is a tendency in that direction at the moment. In my own district a new maternity home is being built, and if the local authority thought that this Measure was going to have a detrimental effect on that institution I am sure they would not welcome the Measure as they do. I think that a great deal more attention will be devoted to maternity homes as a result of this Measure, and that we shall find more hospital accommodation and

more maternity homes than has been the case up to the present.
I rose only for the purpose of giving a general welcome to the Bill, and to express the hope that the Secretary of State will retain an open mind when we come to Committee and be prepared to consider the matters which have been raised by various hon. Members. This is a Measure which is going to increase the burden on local ratepayers. It is a strange thing that such a statement should come from this side of the House instead of the other. When measures of social reform have been discussed, the question as to the expense on local ratepayers has always been raised by hon. Members opposite. I am raising it now; with an object. For a considerable number of years I was a member of a county council, and during that time I saw Measure after Measure passed by this House calling upon local authorities to do this, that and the other thing, every one increasing the burden on local ratepayers. This House determined the changes that were made but forgot to give the necessary financial assistance required for carrying the Measures through. This is a Bill which will impose charges on local authorities, but I have no sympathy with that particular objection when the Measure is desirable and will confer benefits on the community. I have no objection to local rates being raised if the community is getting better service. At the same time, I hope the point raised by the right hon. Member for West Stirling will be kept in mind, and that proper financial arrangements will be made between the Government and local authorities which will encourage local authorities to go on with these schemes. I hope they will not be hindered merely because they are not able to stand up to the expenditure which the Bill will impose, but that the Government will look on this matter with a sympathetic eye and encourage local authorities to use the Measure to the fullest extent.

6.24 p.m.

Sir R. W. Smith: This Bill has been introduced mainly to deal with maternal mortality in Scotland which has been the subject of interest to Scotsmen and the Scottish Office for some time past. There are two ways of dealing with this question. The Government might have gone along the line of further institutional


treatment, but instead are trying to provide better treatment in the home. I am glad they are proposing to deal with the problem in that way. I am not saying that institutional treatment is not good, but I think the Government are right in attacking the problem by trying to get better service in the home. Certainly, as far as the country generally is concerned institutional treatment is almost impossible, and if the Government had attempted to deal with it by extending institutional treatment there are large parts of the country which would not have been assisted at all. It is excellent that the main purpose of the Bill is to improve the standard of domiciliary midwifery in Scotland—a most excellent thing to do.
I should like to refer to one or two speeches which have been made by hon. Members opposite. The right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) said that this was a Socialist Measure. I should like to ask him to look at the Bill more carefully; and how he reconciles the first words of Clause 2 with Socialism. I have understood Socialism always to mean the service being provided free at the expense of the State, but here the service to be provided is to be paid by the patient wherever that is possible. I do not know whether that is pure Socialism, but it is hardly the form of Socialism which we hear preached so much.

Mr. Mathers: The hon. Member seems to think that Socialism can be interpreted as pauperism. It cannot.

Sir R. W. Smith: Under the Bill it is most distinctly stated that the cost of the service shall be recovered where it is possible by the local authority from the woman who receives the treatment. The hon. Member for London University (Sir E. Graham-Little) has failed to read the Bill. He talked about lack of ante-natal treatment, but on page 1 we find that there is to be medical examination and treatment during pregnancy. The hon. Member seemed to think that the Bill did not do anything except to deal with postnatal cases and that nothing was done for the expectant mother at all. I agree with the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Watson). May I put this point? The hon. Member's suggestion was that the only form of treatment before birth was by means of increasing the supply of food. I think that a great deal could

be done by directing the mother on questions of diet and seeing that she was spending her money on food which was of good quality. This is specially referred to in the report. It is not so much a question of the quantity of food, but its quality, and, therefore, women should have some guidance as to what they ought to eat.
I was rather surprised that the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard) made a plea that more women doctors should be appointed because women preferred women to look after them rather than men. I do not know whether women prefer to be treated by women rather than by men in these cases. If it be the case it is rather strange. It is also extraordinary that, although we have several women Members of this House, there is not one present, so that at any rate they seem to think that the subject is better treated by men.

Mr. Leonard: The hon. Member is entirely wrong. I said that in past years there was a reluctance on the part of women to go to women doctors, but that that reluctance has now been placed on one side and they are more willing to call in women doctors.

Sir R. W. Smith: I think that on the whole women prefer to be treated by men doctors. As I have already said, I am delighted that this Bill has been brought in and that it attempts to deal with this question on the lines on which it does; but there are a very large number of small items in the Bill which will need to be dealt with in Committee, and I would like to refer to one or two of them. In connection with Clause 2, I would ask the Lord Advocate, in his reply, to tell the House whether the fees which are to be charged
in accordance with a scale of fees approved by the Department
will be uniform throughout the country. It seems to me that there would be great difficulty if they are not. Another point in the same Clause has reference to the question of whether a person not able to pay the fees should be charged such part of the cost of the service
as he is in the opinion of the authority able to pay.
I think that in many cases there would be a difference of opinion between the authority and the woman as to the


amount that should be charged. Would it not be possible to have some disinterested body or tribunal which would be able to adjudicate? The Bill places upon the local authority the right to decide what the amount shall be, and the woman has no opportunity of appealing against it. I should be glad if the Government would give some thought to that point before the Bill reaches the Committee stage. The local authority is to be able to recover the fees from the husband or other person liable to maintain the woman, but I do not know whether, if a woman has an affiliation order against a man, that man would be considered as being liable to maintain her.
With regard to Sub-section (2) of the Clause, which deals with the payment of National Health Insurance benefit, it seems to me that the provision is unnecessary. If the local authority is to recover from the woman for whom they have provided services or from the husband or other person liable to maintain such woman, such fees as are appropriate, they would naturally be getting from her the money she was receiving in the way of benefit. In Sub-section (1) of Clause 1, which refers to applications, there is the following phrase:
by whom, or on whose behalf application is made.
If the woman makes application herself, naturally it is all right, but is there to be any limitation concerning who may make the application? I can conceive cases in which an outsider might decide to notify that a woman ought to have treatment, for which the woman would consequently be charged. It seems to me that the making of an application ought to be limited to her husband, or to some person having a special connection with her. In conclusion, let me say that I welcome this Bill, especially because it deals with the question of maternal mortality on the lines of improving the nursing services given to women in the rural areas.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan: I do not propose to enter into the controversy as to who are Socialists, or who are good Socialists or bad Socialists, but the reference to the Secretary of State for Scotland having introduced a Socialist Measure reminded me of the 1929 General Election, when the Conservatives were badly beaten in

the City of Glasgow. On that occasion I came out of the County Buildings rather elated by my own result, and one of my friends shouted out, when he heard the result for the Kelvingrove Division, "Thank God, there is one Socialist left in the City of Glasgow!" The subject of this Bill is an important one, and one that is causing great concern to the mass of people in Scotland. I do not intend to discuss the figures of maternal mortality, but I remember that some years ago I took part in a Debate in this House in which maternal mortality figures were given for England, and it was very striking to find that in some of the poor districts, where one would have expected the deathrate to be high, that was not the case, whereas in some of the districts that were better off, where one would have expected the death-rate to be low, it was extremely high.
While I do not seek to prove that this is a problem which affects the very poorest people, I would remind the Secretary of State for Scotland that, in dealing with this problem, the question of housing cannot be left out of consideration. It is of no use bringing a skilled midwife, trained in her work, into a house in which there are not decent facilities for her to do her work without undue interference from the rest of the family. If the midwife goes into a single apartment, where there are possibly two or three other children, she has no chance of doing her work properly. An hon. Member has referred to the question of the nourishment of the mother. I think no one can deny that apart from the actual nourishment of the mother, her mind has an influence on the child. If it is possible to relieve her mind of anxiety and worry at that time of her life, she is considerably helped. The terrible lack of security prior to childbirth is one of the things which often has a considerable effect on the mother. People who have a good income are to some extent relieved of that anxiety.
The provision of this Bill with which I wish mainly to deal is that which confers upon the local authority, through the Department, the power to make certain charges. I beg the Secretary of State to reconsider this matter. The primary object of this Bill is to save life, to bring about, if possible, a fall in the alarming deathrate. If that is brought about, the Bill succeeds; and anything


that may prevent it from achieving that objective is wrong. I think the inclusion of these scales of fees will hamper the success of the Bill. In this House I am usually pleading for the poorest of the poor, but on this occasion I am pleading more for those who are on the verge of being poor. Very often the poorest people are chargeable on the Poor Law authority, and the Poor Law doctor has to attend them when they need a doctor. The doctor has a tremendous amount of work to do, and he is not paid by the patient for each visit.
The consequence is that, not only in childbirth but in all sorts of trouble, he sends the woman to an institution, and because she is in receipt of Poor Law relief, she is compelled to go. In this connection, I may tell the House that a person living in my neighbourhood in Glasgow died, and the doctor told me that if she had been very poor she would have been living, because she would, have been sent to an institution where the trouble would have been dealt with immediately. The very poor woman is usually sent to a first-class institution where the best medical skill is given to her. I speak of a City of which I know, and I am sure the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard) will agree that the Poor Law hospital in Glasgow is staffed by the very best medical people. One of the reasons that the deathrate among the very poor is not so high is that they are sent to these institutions.

Mr. Guy: While agreeing with the hon. Member, is this fact not a very good illustration of the positive side of the means test, whereby the greater assistance is given in cases of greater need?

Mr. Buchanan: I will not bother to argue about that now. The facts are as I have stated them. Let me now take the case of the wife of a tradesman, with, say, three young children and her husband's income about £3 10s. a week. If she is going to have a child, her husband sends for a doctor. The doctor is usually a very human and decent man, and does not wish to run up an excessive bill. Therefore, he attends only when he is absolutely compelled to do so, and the result is that the woman drifts on. If fees are charged under this Bill the result will be that one of the considerations in the man's mind will be the question of fees and how they are to be paid. The

infirmary in Glasgow is of world repute and is constantly saving human life. If the woman is very poor she is removed to a proper infirmary, and there is no charge of any kind. I would say to the Secretary of State that his first duty is to encourage, not merely the very poor, but struggling people like ordinary tradespeople, to take full advantage of the midwifery service and to get regular attendance, if need be, from the medical profession. There ought to be no charge falling on them.
No one can argue that such a thing would be abused. It is now the practice to extend these facilities to the very poor, and I cannot see why people who are just above the poverty line should not have the same facilities granted to them. As I say, I think one of the reasons why the death rate among the very poor, even though they are underfed and badly housed, is not so very high is because they are dealt with promptly in the way I have shown. On this question of fees I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman ought to recast his proposal. I see that local authorities are to have power to make charges according to a scale laid down by the Board of Health. What will happen under those scales? People will pay the charges if they can, but there will be constant wrangling which will do nobody much good. I want this Bill, as far as it is for social uplift, to be a success, but I think that the proposal as to fees ought to be reconsidered. Let this service be free and open to all. If an insured man is ill, he is sure of free medical attention and hospital treatment. The health insurance scheme does that for him. A man who is very poor will receive the same attention through the poor law authorities with no kind of charge or limitation. Why not extend the same facilities to the wife and child of the insured man in these cases?
If the Bill is to be the success which we all desire to see, the services of the midwife and the doctor should be regularly available to all without any question of charge at all. The one consideration should be the safety and well-being of the mother and the child. I am not now-going into any Committee points upon the question of National Health Insurance payments—I hope to be able to raise those matters in Committee. On general lines I would like to see the Bill applied


to the greatest possible number of persons. I wish to popularise the use of the midwifery service. Whether we like it or not there remains among great masses of the Scottish people an objection to allowing these people into their houses. My own mother would never allow a midwife to come near her. I want to see the service extended, and I think the fees proposal is against its extension. I want people to get the services of the doctor and the midwife at the earliest possible moment, instead of waiting until the last moment and ringing up on the telephone perhaps at eleven o'clock at night when a birth is expected to take place at twelve. What chance has a medical man or anybody else in a case like that? Often the people concerned only run for the doctor then because fear drives them to do so. If there are no fees, people will be encouraged to make use of the service earlier Let there be no charitable basis in it at all. Let there be no tests in it at all. Let it be a free and open service and let the people make use of it as they go to the Victoria Infirmary or the Royal Infirmary to-day, rich and poor alike. Let us have no fees and no limitations, but let it be open to all to secure the best midwife and the best doctor available, and I have no doubt that much human life and suffering will be saved.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. G. A. Morrison: The Bill which we are discussing seems to me an excellent Measure. It is certainly a very necessary Measure, and I wish to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State both on the Bill itself and on the reception it has had. I intervene only to support one point which was made by my hon. Friend and colleague in the representation of the Scottish Universities (Mr. G. Kerr). I refer to the anxiety and great concern which is felt by the universities, the medical schools and the teaching hospitals with regard to the possibility of any diminution in the facilities for domiciliary instruction in the case both of medical practitioners and mid wives. I would like to point out that the Amendment to Sub-section (8) of Clause 1 suggested by my hon. Friend is in line with the expressed opinion of a meeting of representatives of those teaching institutions held as recently as

30th October last. Like my hon. Friend, I have had a large number of letters on the point, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman who is going to reply on the Debate can even at this stage before the Bill goes to the Standing Committee give us a little more reassurance upon this point we shall be very glad.

6.52 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: The right hon. Gentleman must be pleased and satisfied with the reception which this Bill has had. Only a few days ago, in connection with another question, I complained of an attempt to put Scottish and English proposals into a single Measure. In this case we have the advantage of a separate Bill for Scotland which enables special Scottish views on this question to be dealt with in a special way, and I congratulate the Scottish Office on having secured that result. There is a great need for the proposed reform, a need which is even greater in Scotland than it is in England, if the published figures accurately represent the facts. I think there is little doubt that in the main, although some allowance must be made for different methods of computation, the information which we gather from the statistics is substantially correct. We have not merely to compare the Scottish position with the English position in this respect. We can with advantage compare the Scottish position with the position in the Scandinavian countries. As a result of improvements made in several of the Scandinavian countries, we find a maternal mortality rate there which is in the neighbourhood of half the corresponding rate in Scotland. It is clear, therefore, that the need for reform is great, and in so far as this Bill will help to bring about that reform, it has, I am sure, the best wishes of everybody in every part of the House. That has been reflected in the Debate, which has indicated approval of the general provisions of the Measure.
There are one or two questions which we shall wish to discuss in Committee, and we welcome the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman that these will receive careful and sympathetic attention where any ground can be shown for making a change in the present proposals. Perhaps the most important criticism this afternoon was that made by the hon.


Member for the London University (Sir E. Graham-Little), who raised the question of ante-natal treatment. I do not think the hon. Member said what was attributed to him by the hon. Member for Central Aberdeen (Sir R. W. Smith), namely, that there was no provision in the Bill for ante-natal treatment. His point was rather that the provision for it did not bulk very largely in these proposals, and was liable to be obscured and overshadowed by the provisions for treatment at childbirth. There is in Sub-section (2) of Clause 1 provision for examination and treatment during pregnancy, and the whole matter depends upon the stress which is laid upon that part of the Bill and the arrangements made for carrying it out effectively. We have to-day compulsory notification of births, but, as far as I know, we have nothing corresponding to it in regard to pregnancy. Certainly, we have not compulsory notification of pregnancy. It is for the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether, without going as far as that, some steps might be taken, perhaps by circular, perhaps by some other means, to bring home to women the desirability and, indeed, the grave importance of notifying pregnancy in sufficient time to enable useful steps to be taken to assist at the birth when it occurs. Perhaps something will be said by the right hon. Gentleman later about the possibility of a step of that kind.
With regard to Clause 2, there has been a good deal of discussion on the question of the fees that are to be paid to reimburse a local authority for its expenditure. I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), and although I often disagree with the hon. Member, I think there was a great deal in what he said this evening. I do not suppose it would be possible at this stage to make the complete change suggested by him, but I think we ought to examine Sub-section (1) of Clause 2 carefully in Committee with a view to ensuring that the best service is provided, and that any charges which are made will not be too heavy a burden on those who avail themselves of the service. We ought to do that, not only in order to prevent people being impoverished but also in order to prevent the charges deterring people from making use of the service. A number of authorities in Scotland have brought forward questions

relating to Sub-section (2) of Clause 2, and these also will form the subject of discussion in Committee.
With regard to the question of compensation for midwives who are already practising, and some of whom perhaps have been trained in a different system from that which prevails to-day, I hope it will not be assumed that because a woman may be getting on in years she is necessarily incapable of acting efficiently as a midwife. Those of us who know the work of the district nurses who practise midwifery in the country, know the great success with which that work has been carried on, and it would be a grave injustice to those nurses and a considerable injury to this work in the countryside, if their services were dispensed with for any other than valid and adequate reasons. No doubt points arising on the question of the compensation which the Bill provides will be discussed in Committee with a view to seeing that no injustice is done to these women.
An hon. Member behind me pointed out that under Clause 6 there were a large number of exceptions to the main provision of the Clause. I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman who will reply will give an explanation of all these exceptions. It may be that there is a good reason why certain treatment is not included, but the reason is not clear yet, and if there is not an adequate explanation the point will have to be carefully considered later. With the considerable measure of agreement that there is on all sides of the House with regard to this Bill, I do not propose to take up further time going over ground that has already been travelled.

7.1 p.m.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. T. M. Cooper): My task in replying to this Debate is not the usual one of defending and justifying the Measure, but the simpler task of meeting criticism which has been helpful and constructive, and of endeavouring to furnish explanations to points which have been raised in good faith and with the aim of making this Bill a better instrument for the object which everyone is anxious to achieve. The hon. Member who has just spoken drew attention to the fact that we have here a separate Bill for Scotland. That is significant, for it throws into relief the fact that the problem of Scotland is


in a real sense a separate problem. While the statistics of maternal mortality and morbidity require to be received with some caution because of the slightly different methods adopted in preparing them, they do justify the conclusion that Scotland stands lower in comparison with certain of the other countries than we Scotsmen would desire to see. In answer to the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Guy), I would say that the statistics are not compiled on a precisely comparable basis, and therefore a certain amount of reserve is required in comparing them. The problem is a separate problem also because of the habits and methods of the Scottish people who, as these reports have shown, have grown accustomed to the practice of utilising the services of the doctor much more than is the case South of the Border. Accordingly, it was not possible to adapt the English Bill to Scottish conditions, and therefore this Bill is necessary.
I would like to emphasise the limited objects which this Bill is designed to secure. The problem of maternal mortality and morbidity is capable of being attacked from several angles. There is that of institutional treatment, and also that which I might call, for short, of nutrition. The answer1 to some questions and criticisms by hon. Members is that this Bill is not concerned with institutional treatment because that is covered by other measures. That is not to say that my right hon. Friend and the Department of Health are blind to the necessity of pursuing the attack on the problem by means of institutional treatment; nor is it to say that they are blind to the advantages which could be secured from better nutrition for the pregnant woman and the nursing mother. The important point is that this Measure must be judged from the standpoint of the limited purpose with which alone it is concerned, that is, the provision of adequate domiciliary midwifery service for the woman. Many of the points that have been raised will inevitably arise again in Committee, and I do not wish to be regarded as wholly committed to any explanation or expression of view which I may give to-night, without having had the full opportunities for consultation with my right hon. Friend which may be available at a later stage.
The right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) inquired with reference to Clause 1, Sub-section (9), whether it was contemplated that all the safeguards of the earlier Sub-sections would not be operative. According to my conception of the Bill no such result is intended, and if by improvement in draftsmanship that can be made clear, I shall apply my mind to the task. The proposal is that if under Sub-section (9) revised schemes are to be put into operation, the whole of the mechanism of the earlier part of the Clause shall again be brought into operation, and that, if necessary, there shall be again consultation with the voluntary organisations, or medical practitioners, or the other interests to which reference is made.
He and other hon. Members, notably the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard), asked about the length of the lying-in period. The position is that the lying-in period is defined in the Bill as the period provided by any rule for the time being in force under Section 5 of the Midwives (Scotland) Act, the object being to secure a measure of elasticity so that when that Act provides for an extension of the lying-in period, that extension shall automatically be operative for the purposes of this Bill. At present the period is 10 days, but I am informed that consideration is being given to extending it to 14 days. If the authorities under the Midwives Act increase the lying-in period to 14 days, then that will become the period for this Bill.
With regard to the weighted formula for the finance of the Bill, I am not sure that it is possible or desirable to go fully into that question at this stage, but with reference to the special point raised by the right hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair), the whole purpose of introducing the weighted formula into the grant under this Bill was to secure that the sparsely populated Highland areas, and certain of the poorer districts in the West of Scotland, should receive a larger proportion than one-half of the money that is given, and that the rich areas such as that which has been instanced in the Debate should receive proportionately less. I am not dismayed when the right hon. Member for Stirling says that Edinburgh under the present formula would only get 27 per cent., because by comparison with other local authorities in Scotland Edinburgh cannot


make the same case of need that many of them can make.
The weighted population and estimated population for the purposes of calculation mean the weighted population and the estimated population as determined at the date of the commencement of this Measure for the purpose of the apportionment of the general Exchequer contribution under the Act of 1929. If the new formula were substituted for the existing formula, certain alterations would be effected in the percentage, but not in the general principle that those who need most shall get most and those who need less shall get less, which seems to me a just method of distributing public money. A number of hon. Members inquired whether when compensating midwives it would not be possible to substitute a flat rate in place of the three years net earnings for the midwives who voluntarily relinquish their certificates and five years net earnings for those who are compelled to do so. In the English Midwives Bill the same problem arose, but the three years and five years were adopted there, and there seems to be a good deal of force in the argument that a higher measure of compensation should be paid to a person who was forced out of business than to one who is allowed to retire of their own volition and to claim public money for compensation.
The right hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland was alarmed at an apparent discrepancy between the estimate of £120,000 per annum in the Memorandum to the Bill and the figures which he found in the report of the Committee on Scottish Health Services. These figures are on pages 286 and the following pages of that report. In order to make the matter as clear as possible, the comparison which falls to be made is not between £240,000 under the Bill and £310,000 in the Estimate in the Committee's report, but between £120,000 under this Bill and £310,000 in the report. So that I have a bigger gap to account for than the right hon. Gentleman assumed. It is accounted for in two ways. The £310,000 in the Scottish Health Services report includes a considerable sum for hospital expenditure which is not included in the Estimate under the Bill. The other factor which accounts for the difference is that the £120,000 under this Bill does not take into account the payments that would be made for

the services rendered. The £310,000 covers a large amount for that purpose. I cannot pretend that these two elements account for the whole of the difference, but they account for the greater part. The remainder is to be attributed to the discrepancies which arise when two different people make estimates on bases which may be slightly different.
Another type of fear has been displayed by several hon. Members, notably the two hon. Members for the Scottish Universities. It related to the risk, which they justly apprehend, that the schemes under this Bill might operate to the detriment of the teaching of midwifery to the doctor and midwife. When the progenitor of this Bill was introduced last summer, no provision was made for these facilities. When the Bill now before the House was introduced this Session, it included provision in Clause 1 (8) for the maintenance of facilities for teaching midwifery. I may say without hesitation that if the language of that provision is inadequate to secure the requirements which those hon. Members have in mind, my right hon. Friend and I will be only too happy to examine any other formula which will achieve that object. Hon. Members in all parts will realise that in a very real sense the continued supply of competent trained midwives and doctors to carry on this work is an integral part of the scheme, and we must so adapt our scheme and our legislative and administrative arrangements as to enable that to be done.
A point was raised in regard to the Clause which imposes a penalty upon unqualified persons, who, for remuneration, attend as nurses on women in childbirth during 10 days immediately afterwards. The justification for the retention of the requirement of remuneration is to be found in the fact that it is hardly possible, consistently with the lawful habits of our people, to make it a criminal practice for, say, a mother or a grandmother to render assistance to one of her daughters. I am not one of those who want to see too many new crimes created. As to the question why we propose to except from the penalty various categories of persons who are set out in Clause 6 (1, b), the answer is that all those persons are in some recognised and responsible institution where medical assistance of a highly qualified character is readily available. All the difference in


the world is to be found between a case of unqualified interference in a private house in circumstances where a great deal of mischief can be done, and unqualified assistance given in an institution under the supervision of qualified medical practitioners. Again, I am willing with an open mind to listen to any argument which may be directed to that point.
The hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard) referred to the refresher courses of instruction under Clause 7 with special reference to the question whether, if the courses involve expenditure to the local authorities, that expenditure would rank for grant. I have a little hesitation in answering that question without some consideration, but my prima facie view is that the courses might be brought within the schemes approved under Clause 1, in which case they would rank for grant. Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to confer with him after a full examination of that matter.
The only other major topic which requires a word of examination is that which was raised with considerable fervour by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), whether the provisions of the Clause dealing with fees for the services provided should stand in the Bill, or whether the services should be provided on a wholly gratuitous basis. The hon. Gentleman, and the hon. Member who followed him and to some extent adopted his arguments, will appreciate that the suggestion they are putting forward makes a substantial inroad on the scheme of the Bill. It involves a departure from the English Bill and from the financial scheme, and from the reports on the basis of which this Bill was framed, so that it is impossible to regard favourably such a suggestion, which cuts pretty deeply into the Bill so far as its financial provisions are concerned. The main consideration I would urge upon the House in that respect is that it is by no means too clear that the object which it is desired to secure, namely, that the services provided by this Bill should be fully taken advantage of, would be better secured by making all these services free. It is an undoubted fact that the contributory method of securing social service benefits has taken deep root in this country and is very much in consonance

with the Scottish spirit. I do not know that it would be in any sense advantageous to make this service a purely gratuitous service—

Mr. Gallacher: Would the Lord Advocate not agree to make the contributions from those receiving maternity assistance voluntary and thus avoid the possibility of any of the poorer people suffering prosecutions.

The Lord Advocate: That is just what the Bill provides. Fees are recoverable if a person can pay them, but if the person cannot pay the fees are not recoverable.

Mr. Buchanan: They must pay if, in the opinion of the local authority, they are able to do so?

The Lord Advocate: That is so. The local authority determine the fees, which will probably not exceed the present fee paid for a midwife only. I think that hon. Members should consider a good deal before adopting the suggestion of the hon. Member for Gorbals that the advantage which he seeks to secure would necessarily be effected by making this provision gratuitous.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: There is one matter with which the Lord Advocate has not adequately dealt. That was the question raised originally by the hon. Member for London University (Sir E. Graham-Little), to which I drew attention also, namely, how far this Bill would enable ante-natal treatment not merely in the last few days before child-birth, but during pregnancy to be provided.

Sir R. W. Smith: May I ask the Lord Advocate whether I understood him to say that the question of compensation can be dealt with on the Committee stage upstairs?

The Lord Advocate: indicated assent.

Sir R. W. Smith: How will that be possible because, if an Amendment is moved to make the period five years for the person who retires voluntarily, it will impose an increased charge on the Exchequer?

The Lord Advocate: I am glad that the hon. Member for East Edinburgh has mentioned his point. The first of the four heads for which provision has to be made in the schemes of local authorities is medical examination and treatment


during pregnancy as distinct from medical supervision during child-birth. Under that head it is certainly intended to include the type of thing that is dealt with in the report on Maternal Morbidity under the heading of pre-natal treatment. Therefore, I would say, in reply to the hon. Member and the hon. Member for London University (Sir E. Graham-Little) that there is no ground for any suspicion or fear that they may entertain that the whole weight of the endeavours of the central department and the local authorities will not be bent upon dealing with what, according to the reports which we have to guide us, is probably the most crucial period in the cure of maternal morbidity and the reduction of maternal mortality, namely the pre-natal period.
As regards the question of the hon. Member for Central Aberdeenshire (Sir R. W. Smith), the Financial Resolution which will subsequently come before the Committee will, of course, have a bearing upon what can be done upstairs and, therefore, it would not be correct to say that the question of "three years" and "five years" could necessarily be dealt with in Committee. That might depend upon the ingenuity with which the hon. Member was able to raise the point, but, broadly speaking, the question of three years or five years might impose a charge on the Exchequer, and if the Financial Resolution passes as it stands, difficulty might be found in bringing the matter up in Committee.
This Bill does not, and is not intended to, represent more than one aspect of the efforts of my right hon. Friend and the Department of Health to deal with this subject. Indeed, I think the wisest words that have been uttered with reference to this problem are contained in the Report about the Scottish Health Services to which a great deal of reference has been made, because on page 174 of that report they say, with reference to the problem:
It is not by any single measure that success will be achieved, but by a series of measures making up a complete service. The service should be based on the doctor and midwife acting in concert, supplemented by consultants and adequate institutional facilities. The emphasis that is put on each will vary according to local circumstances, but in general the broad lines of policy can be laid down for the country as a whole.
In this Bill we have endeavoured to preserve that measure of flexibility which

will enable the needs of the different areas to be met by the methods most appropriate for them, but it is because the Bill lays down the general lines of policy along which I venture to think success can best be achieved that I commend it with confidence to the House.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

MATERNITY SERVICES (SCOTLAND) [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair.]

Resolved,
That—

(1) for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to maternity services in Scotland, to amend the Midwives (Scotland) Act, 1915, and to provide for the combination of local authorities for certain purposes under the Notification of Births (Extension) Act, 1915, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(i) to local authorities (in this Resolution referred to as "authorities") on whom additional expenditure is imposed in respect of any year in the third fixed grant period by the provisions of the said Act of the present Session (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) requiring an authority to make adequate arrangements for the provision to women of the services of domiciliary midwives, and to take steps to secure that there are available for women (not being in-patients in hospitals) who apply therefor—

(a) facilities for medical examination, treatment and supervision during pregnancy, childbirth, and the lying-in period;
(b) facilities for medical examination at least once after the expiry of one month after childbirth; and
(c) the services of an obstetrician,
of a grant in respect of that year calculated to the nearest pound by multiplying half the amount of the said additional expenditure by the weighting factor and dividing the product by the aggregate weighting factor; and

(ii) to every authority of an amount equal to one-half of the aggregate expenditure incurred by the authority in each financial year in paying, by way of com-


pensation to midwives who, in pursuance of the said Act, surrender or are required to surrender their certificates before the expiry of three years from the commencement of the said Act, such sums as will be sufficient to provide compensation equal, in the case of midwives who are required to surrender their certificates, to five times, and in any other case three times, the average net annual emoluments derived from their practices as midwives or maternity nurses during such period as may be provided in the said Act;

(2) for the purpose of sub-paragraph (i) of the last foregoing paragraph—

(i) expenditure imposed as therein mentioned on an authority in respect of any year shall be deemed to be additional if, and to the extent that, it is estimated, subject to the approval of the Department of Health for Scotland (in accordance with directions given by them as provided in the said Act) to exceed the expenditure incurred by that authority in making such arrangements and taking such steps as aforesaid in the financial year ended on the fifteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-six:

Provided that the said directions shall, so far as reasonably practicable, require that the amount of the expenditure imposed as aforesaid on an authority in making arrangements or taking steps for the provision of any such service or facility as aforesaid (other than the services of an obstetrician) but excluding arrangements with voluntary organisations employing midwives or by means of clinics shall be estimated by reference to the estimated average net annual cost incurred by local authorities in making arrangements of the like nature for the provision of such service or facility, such cost being calculated on the basis of each birth in respect of which the service or facility is provided or on such other basis as the said Department may with the approval of the Treasury decide to be more appropriate in the circumstances;

(ii) the expression 'weighting factor' means the quotient obtained by dividing the weighted population of the area of the authority, as determined at the commencement of the said Act for the purpose of the apportionment of the General Exchequer Contribution, by the estimated population of that area as so determined;

(iii) the expression 'aggregate weighting factor' means the quotient obtained by dividing the aggregate weighted population of the areas of all the local authorities as determined as aforesaid by their aggregate estimated population as so determined;

(3) in this Resolution the expressions 'fixed grant period' and 'General Exchequer Contribution' have the same meanings as in the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. Elliot.]

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

HARBOURS, PIERS AND FERRIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

7.37 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I think it will be generally agreed that this Bill is one which is considerably overdue. Hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies for several years have frequently raised questions about particular harbours and piers about which they are interested, and the general subject has been frequently debated in both Houses of Parliament. The House will remember that in 1934 the Government published a Bill, which was not discussed in the House, but which was introduced for the purpose of eliciting opinions both from local authorities and from others concerned with the construction or maintenance of marine works, and the Bill which I am now moving has been drawn up as a result of a review of the matter in the light of the opinions which were expressed about the proposals in the former Bill. I think the only major differences between this Bill and the Bill of 1934 are, first, the introduction of powers for compulsory purchase and, next, the exclusion of marine works which are owned by railway companies, to both of which I will make brief reference in a moment.
I do not think it is necessary for me to dwell either on the unsatisfactory state of many of our piers and harbours, particularly in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, or on the great inconvenience and hardships which are suffered by the inhabitants of these districts on account of their inability to enjoy rapid and satisfactory methods of communication. The main reason for the unsatisfactory state of many of the marine works, and particularly of Highland piers, is that the owners have not the necessary resources to keep them in a proper state of repair. The economic circumstances of our own time are very different indeed from those which prevailed at the time when the piers were built, when the costs of building and maintenance were very much lower, while agricultural produce brought in a very much higher return and enabled


higher dues to be charged than could be charged now. The Bill proposes to meet the situation in three ways—first, by providing for the transfer of piers and harbours or other marine works from their present owners to local authorities; secondly, by setting up a new code for the construction or reconstruction or improvement of works; thirdly, by making provision for the proper maintenance and management of harbours, piers, and other marine works.
Before I mention the particular Clauses in the Bill which contain these three points, let me first say what is included in the scope of the Bill. Hon. Members will see that the Bill refers repeatedly to marine works, and that expression is defined in Clause 30 as follows:
'marine work' means any harbour, pier, ferry or boatslip which in the opinion of the Secretary of State and the Minister of Transport is principally used or required for the fishing or agricultural industries or is essential to the maintenance of communications between the various parts of Scotland …
But it does not include any harbour, pier, or ferry which is owned or worked by a railway company or any of the large harbours, situated at Glasgow, Leith, and other places, which hon. Members will find mentioned in the Third Schedule to the Bill, namely, Glasgow, Leith, Aberdeen, Dundee, Greenock, Ardrossan, and Granton.
Part I of the Bill is concerned with the transfer of harbours and other marine works to local authorities. Power is given enabling the owners of a marine work to transfer it on agreed terms to a local authority authorised by the Secretary of State for the purpose. A local authority here usually means a county council or a town council, but in some cases it may be convenient for two or more councils to combine. We anticipate that as a general rule the local authorities and the owners of the piers will be able and anxious to arrange a voluntary transfer, but we think cases may occur in which this will not suffice and in which powers of compulsory acquisition by the local authority may be necessary. If the owner of a pier is unable or unwilling to maintain it in a safe and proper condition, and yet is not prepared to transfer it to a local authority, it is clear that the interests of the local population may suffer, and while it is hoped that this will not happen very often, we have reason to expect that it

might happen in some cases, and power of compulsory acquisition is, therefore, included in Part I, subject to proper safeguards. The House will find in Clause 2 of the Bill:
Where a local authority are desirous of acquiring a marine work of which they could be authorised to accept a transfer under this Part of this Act and are unable to do so by agreement on terms which are in their opinion reasonable they may purchase the marine work compulsorily by means of a compulsory purchase order made by them and confirmed by the Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of Part I of the First Schedule to this Act.
The House will see that in Part I of the First Schedule it is laid down that an order shall incorporate the Lands Clauses Acts and the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, and the arbiter, if one is necessary, will be one of a panel appointed by the Court of Session for the purposes of these Acts. So much for the transfer of marine works to local authorities.
The next point is that of construction or improvement of works. This involves the grant of suitable powers. At the present time powers can be obtained by local authorities or by harbour authorities under several different Acts, the General Piers and Harbours Acts, the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Acts and the Western Highlands and Islands (Scotland) Works Act, 1891, although the last mentioned one is now very largely out of date. In the case of small schemes particularly the existing procedure often proves to be unduly protracted and expensive, and the Bill aims at a simplification of procedure in these cases. Clauses 4 and 5 substitute the Secretary of State for the Minister of Transport as the authority to whom application has to be made under the General Piers and Harbours Acts and obviates the necessity of confirmation by Parliament in cases in which there is no opposition. The House will see that in Clause 7 of the Bill, power is given under which the carrying out of minor works of construction may in certain circumstances be authorised without any Provisional Order or legislation. There is provision in Sub-section (2) of the Clause that in the Highland counties of Argyll, Inverness, Ross and Cromarty, Sutherland, Caithness, Orkney and Zetland, if the cost of the necessary operations does not exceed £3,000 the Department of Agriculture for Scotland may authorise the local


authority to undertake new works in accordance with the procedure in the Second Schedule to the Bill.
The third object of the Bill is to provide for the proper maintenance of marine works covered by Part III, and that, I think, is a necessary accompaniment of the measures which I have already described. Many of our existing difficulties have arisen from the fact that existing powers for the upkeep of harbours and of piers have either been insufficient or else have not been fully exercised by those who had the power to exercise them. Part III gives to the local authority or harbour authority the necessary power, and at the same time deals with the financial side, relating to fixing and charging of dues—that is, in Clauses 12 and 13—the application of the harbour revenues, and for meeting any deficiency, if necessary, by way of rates. As to the question of finance, with one minor exception the Bill does not contain any provisions relating to financial aid from the Exchequer, and that minor exception is a negative one and contained in Clause 19; but the House will find a more succinct description of it in the Financial Memorandum printed on the front of the Bill. It is purely concerned with the writing off of outstanding liabilities when the marine work is discontinued.
Any grants and loans which may be necessary can be made from existing sources, that is the Votes of the Department of Agriculture and the Fishery Board for Scotland or the Development Fund. On that point all that it would be possible for me to say is that if the legislative provisions of this Bill are carried out it is obvious that there will be a great many more claims on the Department than those which have to be considered at present. The question whether financial aid should be given to any marine work covered by this Bill will, of course, be a matter which will have to be considered on the merits of each particular case. If in future grants or loans are given out of monies provided by Parliament for the construction, improvement or repair of harbours or other marine works, we think it is right, especially in view of past experience, that proper measures should be taken by the local or harbour authority to keep the work in an efficient condition and a

proper state of repair, and a Clause is therefore included in the Bill enabling the appropriate Department to require the authority to carry out the operations necessary for that purpose. It is Clause 14 which gives the Department power to require such repairs to be carried out, and in case they are not carried out the Department may themselves carry out the operation and recover from the authority the expenses thereby incurred.
Part IV of the Bill deals with machinery and a number of small miscellaneous points. Clause 23, which relates to the fixing and revision of dues on inland navigation undertakings, will enable the existing charging powers in respect of the Caledonian and Crinan Canals which, as the House is aware, are conducted not by us but by the Ministry of Transport, to be continued on their present footing. Of late years these powers have been continued from year to year by the Expiring Laws Continuance Act.
I understand that the main purposes of this Bill are acceptable to all sections of the House, and I hope, in view of the long deliberations which have taken place among all the interests concerned since the publication of the previous Bill more than two years ago, that the House may now see its way to give this Bill a quick and easy passage.

7.53 p.m.

Mr. N. Maclean: Before I proceed to discuss the Bill may I, as the first speaker following the Under-Secretary for Scotland, be permitted to take this opportunity of congratulating him not only upon attaining his new position but also on the manner in which he has discharged his duty to-night. He has given the House a very clear and useful statement, and not every one who found himself in a similar position might be able to do the subject the same justice. As all who know anything of the Highlands of Scotland will agree, this is a Bill which is long overdue. Time and time again the case for assisting piers and harbours in the Highlands and Islands has been raised in this House, and while much has been done by temporary measures to afford redress and relief, it has not been adequate to their requirements, and has not secured that better harbourage for vessels which might have been assured had better methods been available. The Under-Secretary has told us that it will not be necessary to submit a Financial Resolu-


tion to this House to authorise the Department to provide a grant of money to a harbour authority to undertake some repair or even the extension of an existing harbour. He said the money required could be obtained under the ordinary Estimates submitted to the House—I think that is the manner in which it will be done—by either the Fishery Board or the Department of Agriculture.
I have here the latest reports of those two Departments, and while they show that grants of money and loans have been made to several places I think it will be the opinion of a large number of people who know the Highlands and the Western Isles that the sums granted have been by no means adequate in view of the risks to which the harbours there are exposed during the severe weather experienced on those coasts. In this morning's papers it was stated that a disastrous breach had been made in the piers at Buckhaven in Fifeshire and that the harbour at Lossiemouth had been destroyed by the gale—I have heard no later reports but that was the information obtained yesterday. If that is so, it means that there are two places in Scotland, apart from any others which may have suffered in the gale, which will require very material assistance from the Fishery Board or the Department of Agriculture immediately this Bill is passed, and consequently the grants which have figured so largely in the reports of those Departments over the last 20 to 25 years will be by no means adequate to meet the situation. I feel that the Scottish Office will soon have to face very large demands, and may have to come to the House for large sums of money in order not only to rebuild some of these harbours but to strengthen other harbours against the possibility of damage such as has been caused in the last two or three days at Buckhaven and Lossiemouth.
I notice that the Bill does not contain anything with regard to a limitation of the rates which can be levied by a local authority when it seeks to raise money to carry out any works which it has power to undertake under this Bill. I think the Act of 1891 limited the rate for harbour purposes to 1d. in the pound, and with the low assessments prevailing in those places that would mean that often only a few hundred

pounds could be raised for the purpose. Take, for example, some of the places along the Moray coast, places like Port-gordon, Buckpool or Portsoy or Banff, which has a population of 4,000. Then there is Macduff with a population also of 4,000, or Cullen which has a population of just about 2,000. One can see the impossibility of a small local authority being able to raise a large sum of money for repairing or dredging an existing harbour or building a new harbour such as would be required. Consequently, there will certainly be applications for grants from those places. Other places look to the Scottish Office to get those grants of money which are adequate to carry out any proposals which they have in mind.
It is true that the Bill gives power to acquire existing harbours, but the Under-Secretary and many Scottish Members will know that the acquisition of some of the harbours will be like Dead Sea fruit. Once those harbours are acquired under the Bill, the local authority which acquires them will have to reconstruct them entirely, because they have for so long been inadequate that nothing has been done to them. The piers are too dangerous for even a small rowing boat to put in beside them in anything like rough weather. The slips of which the piers mainly consist are unsafe, and there is a possibility of some rough stone piercing the woodwork of a small boat in rough weather. It is not the harbour which the local authority will really acquire, but the right, from the owner of the land, to build a new harbour at that place. The cost of doing so will be rather large unless the Fishery Board or the Department of Agriculture comes to the aid of the local authorities in a very substantial manner.
I have one complaint to make, not against the Scottish Office or the Ministers, but one which I have made time and time again. The Bill contains many references to other Acts of Parliament, to which we must go in order to get the exact meaning of the Bill. Why cannot the draftsmen embody in the Bill in clear language all that is required? To refer us, as the Bill does, to over a dozen different Acts of Parliament, taking us back to 1861, over 70 years ago, in order to understand the Bill, is a disgrace to a Department which is as up-to-date as the Scottish Office. I hope that when


other Bills of this kind are brought forward by the Scottish Office they will remember my complaint and will try to make the Bill up-to-date. I wish more English Members were here, because English Bills have the same characteristics. If we could get an alteration, I believe that legislation would be speeded up, and that we could get more business done than we do at present.

8.8 p.m.

Sir A. Sinclair: In the first place, I wish to associate myself with the congratulations offered to the Under-Secretary of State by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) and also with the graceful tribute which the hon. Member paid to the interesting speech in which the Under-Secretary explained the Bill. The Bill is more important than some English Members might appreciate—if they were here, as the hon. Member has just said he wished they were.
I wish to comment upon the Bill from two points of view. There is, first, the vitally important point of the depopulation of the Highlands, about which public opinion in Scotland is deeply concerned. There is no more serious cause of depopulation in the Highlands than depression in the fishing industry. The second point of view, which is topical at the present time, is the importance of encouraging recruitment into our Mercantile Marine. We have had several debates in which alarm has been expressed by the President of the Board of Trade and other speakers at the falling off in recruitment for the Mercantile Marine. I cannot help feeling that there is a definite connection between that tendency and the tendency to depopulation in the fishing villages of the Highlands. All those to whom I have spoken and who have been employed in the Mercantile Marine have told me that the finest natural sailors they get into our merchant ships are the men who come from the fishing villages round the small piers and harbours on the coasts of these islands. I therefore view this Bill as a substantial contribution to the solution of those two problems, although it will not by itself solve them. A safe harbourage is an essential condition for the pursuit of their livelihood by the fishermen of a fishing village and some Measure like this is vital to stop, or to help to stop, the rot which has been causing de-

population in the fishing communities of the Highlands.
It may be asked: Why are the fishermen in the Highlands of Scotland asking for public money and doles to maintain their harbours, whereas, in past years, those harbours were provided, repaired and maintained without the necessity for resorting to the public purse? The answer is that most of the piers and harbours were built 50 or 80 years ago by the landlords of the time, and from the larger harbours the owners received a good economic return upon their investments in the dues which were paid by the fishermen, when inshore fishing and herring fishing were prosperous. Since then, we have unhappily had a decline in the inshore fishing industry. There has been the growth of trawling, the development of steam and motor vessels requiring larger and more commodious harbours than the sailing vessels required, and, most recently, there has been the development of the seine net boat. I shall not discuss to-night the advantages and disadvantages of the seine net method of fishing; I would say only that it has certainly come to stay. Fishermen who have these modern boats will not go back to the old method of line and bait, which involved such hard labour for the fishermen themselves and for their wives and families. The motor boats and the seine net boats require more commodious and safer harbours than the simpler vessels of the past, and that is one of the reasons why it is important that Parliament should come to the help of the fishing communities in Scotland.
I have touched upon the social reasons—the depopulation of the Highlands, the importance of maintaining the fishing communities for the recruitment of our Navy and our Mercantile Marine and upon the fact that the development of modern types of vessel necessitates the provision of more commodious harbour accommodation, and on the fact that the economic position of the industry is such that it can no longer pay, by way of dues, a return on investment of private capital in the repair and construction of harbour work. Therefore, I welcome the Bill. There are, however, one or two points to which I would draw the attention of the House and on which I would like to ask questions of the Government. One of the most important features of the Bill is the proposal for the compul-


sory acquisition of harbours in certain places. There is a strong case for compulsory acquisition. I have advocated it in the past and I am prepared to support it now, but we have to be very careful that, under the guise of compulsory acquisition, we do not attribute, to private property which is now economically worthless, a value which it would not possess except by virtue of the Bill which we shall be passing. A reference was made by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) to legislation by reference, and to the difficulty of understanding the meaning of a Bill when you have to follow a trail through Acts of Parliament leading back as far as 1861—I think the hon. Member said. It happens that the worst example of that vice in this Bill is in the Clauses relating to compulsory acquisition. I hope that the Minister who replies will be good enough to explain exactly how the compulsory acquisition Clauses will work.
I have referred to the fact that the piers were originally constructed by landlords by way of investment of their capital, but when the inshore fishing industry began to decline and dues were no longer paid, there was no fund out of which to provide for the maintenance and reconstruction of the harbour works. The result has been that, in many of these cases, for 20 or 30 years, on the one hand no dues have been received, and on the other hand no expenditure has been incurred by the owner of the harbour or pier on its maintenance and repair, and it has become valueless to the proprietor. In such circumstances a great many proprietors in recent years have handed over their harbours free to the local authority, on the understanding, and, indeed, on the assurance, that a grant of 75 per cent, would be paid by the Department of Agriculture for the repair of the harbour, the difference being found either by local subscription or by the local authority, and that the local authority would take over the responsibility of maintaining the harbour or pier. I could quote several cases in my own constituency in quite recent years of proprietors who on these terms have made free gifts of their piers to the local authority, and at this moment I can think of at least one case—I am not sure that there are not more—of a proprietor who is willing to hand over his pier, a very important pier, to the people of the dis-

trict on these terms as soon as he can get the assurance that the money for the repair of the pier will be forthcoming and that the local authority will make itself responsible for its maintenance. The pier is valueless to him, and, provided he can get these assurances, he is very willing to hand it over so that it can be put in a good condition for the service of the people.
If, however, proprietors all over Scotland are to be told that in future they will be entitled to claim compensation for their piers, they will find that property which until now has been valueless has suddenly received a statutory value, since they have been given a claim to compensation. The Secretary of State shakes his head. I am only putting the argument, and I shall be very glad indeed to hear if there is a satisfactory answer to it, but it is a serious argument which is in the minds of a great many of us in this House and in Scotland. The fear is that proprietors whose property is now worthless will, instead of being prepared to hand over their piers, say that, having a statutory right to compensation, they will stand out for their rights. The proprietor may be a trustee, who is bound to stand up for the interests of the people for whom he acts, and he may quite well say that he has a moral duty to stand out until the compulsory procedure is adopted and until he receives the compensation to which under this Bill he will be legally entitled.

Mr. Elliot: In view of the suggestions which the right hon. Gentleman is making, I think it is well that I should intervene at this moment to say that the Bill confers no financial improvement in the status of any property. It will not be in any way improved by the passage of this Bill, and no further claim to compensation can possibly arise out of the Bill. In any compulsory purchase an official arbiter will judge the price as between a willing buyer and a willing seller, and, if the property has no value, the finding of the official arbiter will be that the value is nil.

Sir A. Sinclair: It would be interesting to know how that will work. Would, the right hon. Gentleman tell me later on whether, in the case of a pier or harbour on which no dues have been paid for 20 years, the proprietor will receive no compensation if the property is compulsorily


acquired? Let us imagine the case of a proprietor who has gone to considerable expense on a pier, not with any hope of receiving any economic return, but merely for the sake of his tenants. Does the right hon. Gentleman tell me that in such a case the proprietor will receive no compensation at all—no return for the expenditure he has incurred upon the pier— merely because it is of no economic value?

Mr. Elliot: Surely, the right hon. Gentleman will not ask me to deliver in advance the arbiter's award upon a hypothetical case imperfectly stated. I assure him, and I am certain that he will accept the assurance, that the Bill confers upon the proprietor no added right to compensation over and above what he has at present. The arbiter's award will determine the matter on an examination of the facts. Clearly, it would not be possible for me to go into the matter further at this stage, save to say that the Sanger which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind of an enhanced price resulting from the Bill, has been in our minds, and as far as was possible the Bill has been drawn to avoid any such enhanced price.

Sir A. Sinclair: As I do not think I managed to make my point quite clear to the right hon. Gentleman, I will make one more effort, and no doubt the answer will be given to us at the end of the Debate. The point is that at the present time the proprietor knows perfectly well that he has no hope of getting compensation or value for a pier in respect of which he has received no return for the last 20 years. Therefore, if the local authority say, "We have the money; we can get a grant from the Department of Agriculture; we will find the money and make ourselves responsible for the pier if you will hand it over," in nine cases out of 10 he will hand it over. But if he knows that he is going to have a statutory right to compensation under this Bill he will be almost certain to stand out for it, and if he is a trustee he is absolutely certain to do so. The right hon. Gentleman tells me in reply that the proprietor will have no right to compensation if the property has no economic value. I ask, is that so? In the case of the proprietor who has laid out money on repairing a pier—

Mr. Macquisten: Or on building it.

Sir A. Sinclair: —or on building it, and receives no dues, so that the pier has no economic value, does the right hon. Gentleman tell me that he will receive no compensation? I hope the Lord Advocate will be able to give a reply on this point at the end of the Debate. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to realise that I am trying to put the matter before him in a helpful way, not as criticism of the Bill or of the Clause. I am willing to support the Clause subject to this one thing which I think ought to be made clear—that, in cases in which the proprietor has received no income from the pier for, say, 20 years, and has incurred no expenditure on it for a similar period, he should receive no compensation, and that the local authority should be able to get the property without having to pay for an asset which in fact has no value and on which no expenditure has been incurred by the proprietor for a great number of years.
There is one other point on the question of the compulsory acquisition procedure which I would like to put to the Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate. I would ask them whether they would not agree that a provision should be inserted in the Bill whereby, if a local authority finds that the compensation awarded by the arbiter is excessive and onerous, it should be able to drop the compulsory purchase procedure. It should not be told, "You have applied for a compulsory purchase order. This is the award and you have to pay it." What would the position be if a local authority found itself faced with an award which it thought excessive and wanted to drop the application for compulsory purchase? Would it be able to do so?
Another point of comparative detail, but still important, is the risk of a local authority being exposed to some enormous charge for repairs. Under Clause 14 the Department would have the right to order the local authority to maintain a marine work in an efficient condition and in a proper state of repair. The hon. Member who spoke last referred to the disastrous effect of the recent storm on certain harbours, and he mentioned Lossiemouth. Last year the storm did thousands of pounds' worth of damage to Lossiemouth, and again this year the damage has been as bad, or even worse. What would the position be


if a local authority found itself faced with an order by the Department to carry out repairs the cost of which would constitute a crushing burden on its ratepayers? Under Sub-section (2) it can make an application to the sheriff for the cancellation or modification of the requirements contained in the notice. Does that cover the case? I have consulted a lawyer, who tells me that in his view the local authority would be bound to carry out any work that was absolutely necessary for the repair of the harbour, whatever it cost. They would have an appeal to the sheriff as to whether such a work was really necessary, whether it was not an extension or improvement rather than a mere work of repair, but they might find themselves faced with the necessity of imposing a crushing burden of expenditure upon their ratepayers in order to comply with the order of the Department. I would therefore ask the Lord Advocate whether, in order to enable the sheriff to give them adequate protection, it would not be necessary to add some words which would make it clear that the sheriff would have power to decide whether the cost of such repairs or improvements was a fair charge to impose upon the local authority or not, and to cancel or modify the Department's requirements.
The Bill is an important piece of machinery, but, of course, nothing effective will be done towards what is required for the repair and improvement of our piers and harbours unless we can get increased provision from the Treasury for that purpose. I hope that grants will be increased for this purpose in the immediate future. There is a great deal of unemployment in the Highlands. I have argued that on several occasions and pointed out how high the ratio of unemployment in those counties is as compared even with the depressed areas. There is great need for public works of this importance in that area, and I hope that that aspect of the problem will not be lost sight of. The Under-Secretary reminded us that there is no provision in the Bill for finance. He said it could be "met from existing sources," and I hope it will be met with sufficient generosity to make the Bill the useful Measure which in that way it could be made.

8.31 p.m.

Mr. Anstruther-Gray: The right hon. Baronet has welcomed the Bill as a piece

of machinery largely because of the benefit that he believes it will bring to fishing. I should like to welcome it also for the benefit which I believe it will bring to the tourist trade, because I think the time has now come when we recognise that one of the most hopeful prospects for financial improvement, in the Western Highlands and Islands at any rate, lies in the development of the tourist industry. I do not regret that at all. The only drawback is that it provides seasonal instead of permanent employment, but as long as that can be sufficiently lucrative it is all to the good, and I believe we should do everything in our power to assist it. My only question is as to how much the Bill is in fact going to do to assist it. As I understand the Bill, it is only an enabling Bill. The right hon. Baronet made the point that it does nothing more than allow local authorities to take over any pier, harbour or ferry that they think fit. It makes no financial provision for helping them. That does not mean that the Secretary of State cannot give financial assistance, because I believe he has already adequate powers to do this under the Development Grant, Fishery and Agriculture Public Works sub-heads. Under Clause 14 of the Bill I am very pleased to see that, once a grant has been sanctioned, he is to have the power of requiring a local authority to take action if it will not take it independently. I hope he will use his power to make these grants when called for and require local authorities to carry out improvements whenever they are necessary, because on his action depends the effectiveness of the Bill. I am doubtful whether, unless they are given encouragement, local authorities will avail themselves of their powers. In the case of a going concern perhaps they will, but, where money is obviously going to be lost, at any rate for the time being, I am very doubtful if Highland counties, which are exceedingly hard up, will be prepared to increase their rates.
I find it difficult to foresee the actual effect of an Act of Parliament and it is extraordinarily difficult in this case. I should like to put to the Secretary of State the definite question how much effect he expects the Bill to have in the next year or two; I should like to put to him one or two cases and ask whether he anticipates that they will be met by


the Bill. The first case I will put is one that he has heard before, which has to do with Strome Ferry. It refers to an occasion when I was imprisoned with my motor car on Strome Ferry for three hours. It happened merely because the pier on either side was so short that at low tide the ferry-boat could not come sufficiently near to allow the car to be taken off. A comparatively small sum of money only is necessary to put this matter right. The position to-day is that the Government say that it is not their job, and the local authority ask why should they take action. The landlord lets it to a tenant, who does not want to see his rent raised, and neither the landowner nor the tenant is prepared to sink the capital into it. The result is that nothing is done, and people are imprisoned for three hours, and charged 10s. for it. When that happens to somebody like me or to my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart) it may not very much matter because we probably love the place and will go back in any case, but if it happens to an English tourist or a foreigner it matters very much indeed. It will make him vow that he will never go that way again, and instead of coming back next year and encouraging his friends to come, he will discourage them from coming near the place at all. I managed to get off the ferry when the tide went down after nearly three hours. It took one hour for the tide to go down, and another two hours before I could get off.
I would ask the right hon. Gentleman when he replies, to say whether he believes that the Bill which we are discussing is likely to meet that case within the next 12 months. The second case is the ferry between Kyle of Lochalsh and Kyleakin. It again concerns tuorists, and it is the tourists in whom my constituents are probably interested in the West Highlands. It is not that the service is incomplete, but that it is woefully insufficient for the volume of traffic passing in the summer. I have seen cars wait for six hours in order to get across—from nine o'clock in the morning until three in the afternoon. It does not take very much imagination to see how inconvenient that may be at the end of a holiday if you have connections to catch. A person with no strict time-table at all could easily become disgusted at being kept waiting

for six hours on end in order to get across a narrow ferry. I ask the Scottish Office whether cases of that sort are to be dealt with within the next 12 months. It is only if these cases are met that we shall get that real help to the tourist trade which would bring much greater prosperity in the Western Highlands. I think that the ferry will be taken over under this Bill. As I read the Measure, it makes provision for taking over ferries from private individuals. Is not that so?

Mr. Wedderburn: I rather think that the ferry belongs to the London Midland and Scottish Railway and therefore does not come within the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Anstruther-Gray: If that is so, it is a very unsatisfactory answer, because in that case I do not know how we are to get the ferry improved. The last thing I wish to refer has been mentioned by the right hon. and gallant Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair). It is the position of the private owner of a pier where the pier requires constant expenditure in order to keep it from falling to pieces. The dues from the pier are quite insufficient to meet the expense, and, as far as the owner of the pier is concerned, he is literally throwing money into the sea. He is not dependent upon it and does not need it himself but he appreciates that it is very important for the people who do need it. In the particular case of which I am thinking, the owner is willing to allow the local authority to take over the pier. The local authority refuse to do so on the ground that, while they recognise the importance to the inhabitants of having a pier, they are not prepared to saddle the ratepayers with the burden of its upkeep. Is there any hope of the Government promising to give assistance in cases of that kind? I do not expect my right hon. Friend to give categorical replies to the questions I have asked him, but I would like to know whether it is to be a general practice in cases of the type that I have mentioned, that the Government will help and will not leave the cost to be entirely borne by the local authority. On this point depends the extent to which this Measure will succeed in improving the ferries.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. Macquisten: This Bill, it has been said, is just a piece of machinery, but unless the Treasury come to the rescue


it will be like a motor car without petrol. It will be left alone and nothing will be done. The essential fact is that Parliament has to recognise that there is not any money in the Highlands for the improvement of piers and harbours, because away back in history we were sadly abused by the English Parliament. All our civilisation and our land system were destroyed, and the people were driven to the ends of the earth. We are suffering from this mal-abuse and yet in English wars the great Earl of Chatham summoned the Highland race to fight. We have rendered immeasurable service to the British race and the British Empire, and it is of immense value to preserve what original stock there is left. No money which is spent should be looked at with a narrow eye. If you get men to go out in these fishing boats to fish in these stormy seas, they ought to be provided with proper harbours, because they are men upon whom the defence of our shores will rest. Therefore, very large expenditure is justified in providing them with harbours. Also we had our fishing destroyed by English trawlers. In the days of Charles 11 there was not an English fishing boat allowed to approach within 28 miles of Scottish shores, and there was plenty of fish for the hand fisherman, and there would be still but for the depredations of the trawlers, who utterly disregard the law of the sea and go all over the place and destroy the fishing.
We have a great claim to the maximum assistance, and harbours for shore fishermen should be dotted all over the coast. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair), that the owners of the harbours, in nine cases out of ten, are only too willing to make them over. There is a fine harbour in the Island of Arran which is opposite Cantyre, the name of which for the moment escapes me. I got the present Duke of Montrose to offer it to the Scottish Office as a gift and he was only too glad to do so, because he was broad-minded enough to realise that it would greatly assist the surrounding districts. What did the Scottish Office do? They would have only needed to dredge the harbour. It had silted up, but if it had been dredged it would have been a useful harbour. Not more than £7,000 or £8,000 would have been required to do

the work, and it would have been of great service to the fishermen. They could have left their boats and taken the steamer across, and have got home. But it was no good. The Scottish Office would not have the harbour as a gift because it meant a little money spent. The scheme was stymied. There was no harbour or pier in the district available except those at Campbeltown and Tarbert and they were too great a distance away to be as useful to everyone. Take the fishing village and summer resort of Carradale in Kintyre. There is an iron pier, and if a steamer gives it a bump the pier will go, and the district will be ruined, because there is no other possible means of access except by going 150 miles by road. The late proprietor wanted to get something out of the pier, whereas he should have been only too grateful to have it taken over. I do not know whether it would have been taken over, because I do not know whether the Scottish Office were in a position to take it over at that time.
Many of these proprietors cannot afford the expense of maintenance of the piers. It takes a colossal sum to repair a pier. Incidentally, I note that there is very little about piers in the Bill. It is nearly all about harbours. Why should not the piers be kept up in the public interest, largely through the Ministry of Transport? As our immortal songster, Harry Lauder, sings: "Keep on to the end of the road." Let the Minister of Transport keep right on to the end of the road, which is the pier. Let him see that we have the necessary grants to put the piers in order. There is no proprietor in Scotland who can afford to put up a pier now or to maintain it. They are all pretty well taxed out of existence.
The hon. and learned Member for Greenock (Mr. R. Gibson) talked about the rapacity of the landlords. They have nothing to be rapacious with nowadays. Almost all of them, unless they have separate means of livelihood other than the land, cannot exist, because there is nothing in the land for them. Away back in Scottish history, especially in the eighteenth century, steps were taken which have had very dire results, and so many of our people have left the country. In 1825 we were deprived of the right of private distillation. Distillation kept an immense number of people on the land. The fisherman who had a small still could make a little bit out of it. More-


over, the spirit which he distilled enabled him to conflict with the wet and general inclemency of the weather. He was able to take a prophylactic against influenza and colds, and he was also able to make a little out of the transaction. That right of distillation was taken away by the English Parliament and, therefore, a source of living was taken away. I view that step with a strong sense of disapproval. There are a few people in the Highlands who are defying the law; I wish there were more of them. If there were, it would perhaps bring home to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the monstrosity of over-taxing poor people who consume a commodity which in time of sickness does much to restore health.
The question of transport in Scotland is in many cases a crying shame. Take the case of Connell Bridge. A charge of 10s. is made for going across in a car. The owners will not allow a charabanc or any industrial vehicle to cross, but only private motor cars. The bridge belongs to the London Midland and Scottish Railway. It is disgraceful the extent to which railway companies are stifling the means of opening up the country districts by road transport. Nobody has done more harm to the population of this country in the last few years than the railway companies. We in this House should hang our heads in shame at the way in which we allow the railway companies to get their way in restricting road transport. To return to Connell Bridge, if you want to take a sheep across that particular bridge you are only allowed to take one sheep at the time. The company reply that they charge only one halfpenny per sheep, but the taking across of one sheep is not an easy matter. Sheep have a great aversion to solitude. A sheep does not want to be alone. Hence the legend about Mary and her lamb. The man has to drag the sheep across the bridge, and although he pays only one halfpenny for the sheep he has to pay 2d. for himself. Then he goes back for the next sheep and pays another 2d. for the return, so it costs 4½d. a sheep. And so the process and the charge go on. At one place drovers swim their sheep and cattle across. I believe there is a charge even for swimming the animals across, although they go under their own power. There are many other places I could men-

tion. There is Ballachulish Ferry. The position there has, however, been mitigated to some extent. All these places are private property. The means of transport across these piers and bridges ought to be practically free.
Transport is the one form of public assistance which can be given to the people of the country that does not demoralise them. All other forms of public assistance have a tendency to impair initiative and to encourage people to hold out their hands for more. I should like to give free transport for goods and other things. It increases the moral and economic standard of those who benefit. A man may be living far away in the country, but if he sees that he can get his produce to the market at a profit he will work all the harder and keener. Giving him such assistance will not demoralise him, but assist him. Therefore, all the money that is spent in cheapening the economic transport available to the people strengthens the character of the people, strengthens their economic status and also strengthens the wellbeing of the country. It is one of the best forms of investment in which any good Government could engage. Therefore, I hope the Secretary of State for Scotland will look into the matter. As Minister of Agriculture he was accustomed to hand out doles of all kinds, and in some cases the justification was doubtful, but in getting the Treasury to find sufficient funds to assist transport and to provide the whole of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland with good piers and harbours for the fishermen he will be providing a productive asset. There is the question of tourist traffic, which is important. They need plenty of accommodation and not necessarily at a hotel. I believe the crofters could make a very decent addition to their livelihood by providing stands for caravans and providing the owners of the caravans with food. [HON. MEMBERS: "Whiskey!"] Yes, it would be a good thing if they could provide that—eggs, butter and other necessaries of life. It would be of enormous assistance to the crofters and the fishermen, and would enable people of small means who cannot afford hotels, to travel more. There is great need for opening up our districts with roads and, above all, with piers.
The right hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland raised the question of compensation. That could be got over by inserting a Clause in the Bill giving a counterclaim for betterment. If that Clause were put in there would be no claim for compensation. Let us remember what happened in regard to the Canadian Pacific Railway when it was built. The railway company got much income for the sale of land alongside the railway. If, at the beginning of the railway system in this country, the railway companies had not been prohibited from investing in land, if they had had the right to take large areas of land, with compensation to the owner of the land as it existed before the railway was made, they would have had so much money now that we should all be travelling free.
That is a good sound doctrine. It was acknowledged in the Road Transport Act of 1909. Local authorities were given the right to take a certain area of land on each side of the road which it was proposed to lay down, but, unfortunately, that right was never exercised. It was not unjust. If a man was getting his estate opened up by a fine new road he would get a substantial sum as compensation not upon the value of the land when the road was made but upon the value of his land before the road had been made. If he made any objection he could be told that the road would not be made, and there is no doubt that he would accept the terms rather than do without the road altogether, because on the balance of his land he would make a large profit. I bought a little bit of land outside London—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Captain Bourne): Order, order. We are dealing with harbours and piers and jetties, not with roads.

Mr. Macquisten: I was saying that the harbour is at the end of the road, and I was thinking of it as a road. If there was something of that kind in the Bill the amount of compensation would be very small. If a man has gone to the expense of putting up a harbour to say pier I think it would be wrong to say that as he is not making any money out of it "we are going to give you nothing." In Mull several landowners joined together and built a pier which has yielded little or no return for 30 years. I think it would be a great hardship if they were

not paid and no question of betterment could arise there. Lots of these harbours in Scotland were put up for the purpose of giving employment. A harbour was put up over 100 years ago at Granton by the Duke of Buccleuch at a cost of about a million pounds, entirely to give employment to the people. For a time it was remunerative, but latterly was not. It was taken over by the railway company, who proceeded to make it pay. I believe that if this Bill is worked in a generous fashion, if a liberal amount of money is supplied by the Treasury, it will prove a very useful asset. In the long run it would enable you to keep the population on the land, you would have a reservoir of first-class seamen for all your national requirements, and in that way it would be the best possible investment. But if it is only the case of a few negligible thousands of pounds here and there, not dealing in an ample and liberal fashion with the subject, we are wasting our time to-night in passing this Bill.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: It is remarkable that the most amusing incident tonight seems to have been the reference to getting something done in 12 months. I really think that a saving Clause might have been put into the Bill, which does not give full satisfaction to any hon. Member who has spoken so far, saying that something should be done within 12 months' time. We have waited for 12 years, indeed for 12 generations in some cases, for something to be done for the improvement and construction of piers and harbours in certain parts of Scotland. I am going to confine myself to the Highlands and Islands, the parts most affected by the Bill. This is an area covering about one-fifth of Great Britain, but it maintains only a very small proportion of its population. It should and could maintain a much larger population, if it was properly developed. It is the direct responsibility of the State, not of the local councils or the people themselves, to develop this area of Great Britain, and the State cannot shirk that responsibility for ever or pass it on to the many local authorities with their different policies and different compositions and ideas.

An Hon. Member: And no money.

Mr. MacMillan: That is right. In the Memorandum to the Bill we are told that


we cannot expect any money. Indeed, we are promised no money for the construction of any harbour or pier. The only suggestion is that there is to be money for the demolition of harbours and piers, not for the construction of piers and jetties. I am sorry that in the Bill there is no provision for the compulsory acquisition by local authorities of assets belonging to railway companies. It would be a more profitable proposition if local authorities could take over marine works belonging to railway companies. Indeed, they are almost the only properties worth considering by local authorities as worthy of acquisition. With all due respect to the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman and the Scottish Office, and with all due gratitude for the little good that the Bill does, it really is nibbling at a very big problem. It is a very small Bill in contrast with the problem it aims at solving. If it aims at solving this problem it is a somewhat puny attempt. No effort is made to consider it as a whole. Let me quote an opinion about such Measures as this for dealing with this problem in the Highlands and Islands. In the "Oban Times" of the 25th July, 1936, this appears:
The recent discussions in the House of Commons on Scottish agricultural affairs, particularly these affecting the Highlands and Islands, were again disappointing. The misfortune is that Parliament has never formulated or followed a concrete policy for the Highlands and Islands. Isolated measures have been squeezed out of the Ministry and each of the concessions to public demand has included some counteracting restriction or excluded the essential accessory.
In this case the essential accessory which is excluded is money. That, in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, is the most important aspect of the whole case; and there is no question whatever that it is going to spoil entirely the effect of the Bill in so far as it has any effect at all. The money is not there. Apart from the Orkneys and Shetlands, the most prosperous part of the Islands, which cannot be compared with the rest of the Highlands and Islands, the right hon. Gentleman knows, as I know from first-hand information and as his predecessor was agreed, the money is not there. The county councils cannot do these things unless the financial assistance is forthcoming. I will quote further: At present there is

a Committee to investigate the possibilities of economic development in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland and the possibility of developing local industries.
That Committee ought to have certain powers with regard to piers and harbours, and things of that sort, and this Bill ought to be related to the report of such a committee. Indeed, we ought to have had the report of such a committee before us in discussing this Bill to-night; but even if we had the report of the present committee, its terms of reference are far too narrow. It ought to be a statutory committee having certain powers, but it has none. When it was advertised that this Bill was to be introduced, the right hon. Gentleman raised great hopes. I will quote again from the "People's Journal," which expressed the very great expectations that were aroused by the prospect of the introduction of the Bill:
One of the greatest sources of grievance in the Western Isles and along the Western seaboard of Scotland may be shortly removed if Government business in the next Parliamentary Session will allow of the passage of the new Bill. This is a Measure to enable local authorities in Scotland to take over piers, harbours and ferries which are privately owned.
The expectations were that all those things would be included in the Bill, and that there would be no exceptions such as those where railway companies and private interests are involved. The Government are running away again from the railway companies simply because they have been given a Frankenstein power over those who create that power.
For years the question of these piers, harbours and ferries has been a bone of contention up and down the West Coast of Scotland. Now at last an efiort is to be made to solve the problem. Briefly, the Bill aims at making it easier for local authorities to acquire privately-owned piers, harbours and ferries in Scotland which the present owners are no longer able to maintain adequate to the needs of the areas they serve.
So says the "People's Journal." So the article continues in a very cheerful note, as though all the problems would be solved, and a very courageous Measure brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman, aiming at some of that co-ordination which he has preached so much in the past and which he has certainly tried to obtain in agriculture during the past few years.
There are several examples that I intended to quote, but as other hon. Mem-


bers wish to speak, I shall be brief. There is the case of Craignure, in Mull, where the owners have offered to concede the pier at a reasonable compensation. There are other cases, such as that of Portnaguran, in the Island of Lewis, where they have been waiting since the Walpole Commission's Report 46 years ago for the construction of the pier which that Commission recommended. Last week a local newspaper wrote:
Last week the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries visited this district in order to find out what would be the cost of building it. How many fishermen who met the members of the Walpole Commission in 1890 met the Economic Committee on the Highlands and Islands, who were also reporting during last week? How many sons of those men perished in the War? How many grandsons are telling the same stories to the Committee as their grandfathers told in 1890? The Committee which visited Port Naguran seems to have been favourably impressed by the fishermen's pleas. The need for a pier still exists. The boats have still to be drawn more than 100 yards along the beaches each time they are launched and each time drawn up again. Every stone for ballast has to be lifted out. There are good fishing days when the boats cannot be launched because of breakers on the beach, and in stormy weather they require constant attention or they may be smashed to pieces. Still the fishermen at Port Naguran are waiting as they waited in 1890.
Some have waited longer. There are many examples I could quote. I could give a dozen grievances from the 1935 election address of the hon. Gentleman who used to represent the Western Islands in this House, Mr. Ramsay. Dozens of different schemes have been delayed for years and have been supposed to be under consideration. There have been reports of various committees which have made favourable recommendations, but these schemes have still not been undertaken either by the local authorities or by the State. I do not intend to oppose this Bill because it does give certain powers to the local authorities which we welcome. As the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) said, the piers, harbours, jetties and boat-slips in the smaller villages are not to be overlooked. They are the beginning and end of the roads; they are the gateways of the Islands and they are the gateways of the ports. All that comes into the ports passes through them to the hinterland, and all that goes out from the ports goes through the harbours. They are as important as the middle of the roads

or any other part of the roads. They are the beginning and the end of the road, and in the Islands the most important part of the road.
The case for rural distressed areas has never been stressed in this House, and I will not at this moment discuss those distressed areas at length, although they have a very definite and immediate bearing upon this subject. While we may be able to get along for awhile somehow with the industrial distressed areas, there is one thing we cannot get along with in this country, and that is the rural distressed areas when we can no longer feed the industrial areas with the produce of the countryside. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland has been responsible for very much reorganisation in agriculture, and he will agree that these areas of the Highlands, one-fifth of Britain's area, really must be given the opportunity of development which they have so long been denied.
There is an expensive steamer service run by the MacBrayne Company across the Minch and to the various Islands, the inner Islands and the Western Islands. It is subsidised to the extent of over £50,000 a year, a substantial sum, and for it we expect a good steamer service. We expect cheap rates for freights and passengers, but we do not get them. We have various grievances because of the irregularity in certain parts especially in the Southern Islands, although to the Isle of Lewis and the Northern Islands the service is very good and the seamanship excellent all over. In some cases there are good boats, but in other cases there are not. There are great difficulties in stormy weather, particularly in some parts with the very bad harbours and dilapidated piers. The problem of a proper transport service by sea between the Western Islands and the mainland is most urgent. In order to justify the very substantial subsidy given to the MacBrayne service and allow that service to give its best, there must be proper landing places, proper harbours and proper piers at which the boats can land their cargoes and load freights and embark passengers. People must not be asked to get out of the steamer at sea and go down a rope ladder into a rocking little boat, and travel two or three miles across very dangerous seas in some cases. They should be able to land


properly, as people in any other part of the country are.
However, we have in this Bill, in the provisions for consultation between the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Minister of Transport, and the Board of Trade, the seeds of a policy of co-ordination between the Departments which will assist in dealing with this problem as a whole. I would like to see the right hon. Gentleman pressing for a Measure taking State control of these piers, harbours and ferries. I would like to see a really bold Measure, to place all these things under the State and run them as part of the national transport service. After all, these are public services and ought to be publicly owned, with a Minister directly responsible for them and a Department directly in control of them. The people are all for public control of these services. If you ask the fishermen whether they prefer to deal with a county council or with a private body they will tell you that they would rather deal with public property than with the property of private individuals.
There was a recent case in the Island of Lewis where a private individual for some reason or other claimed the right of proprietorship of a little jetty and sought to exclude the fishermen from landing from, and using +heir little fishing boats there. The case was heard and, of course, the decision was given that he had no right whatever to exclude them. Lossiemouth is another example. There you had the Lossiemouth and Elgin fishermen going to the local authority and asking them to take the pier over from the company and run it under public control. At Lossiemouth they delayed till the water rose "up and up" till now it has swamped the whole thing and landed the company, as it may land the county council in future years, in very heavy expense under the Bill. That is only one example, and all over the country you find that fishermen would prefer these services to be publicly owned and controlled.
There is another point in connection with the MacBrayne services. On 18th May, 1928, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) in a discussion on the MacBrayne contract said:

This great steamship company owns many of the piers. That makes competition difficult or impossible and compels, sooner or later, a Government to take over piers and ships." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th May, 1928; col. 1427, Vol. 217.]

Mr. Macquisten: The company does not own the piers.

Mr. MacMillan: It does not own so many now.

Mr. Macquisten: It only owned one or two at any time.

Mr. MacMillan: The company has taken over the pier at Tarbert. I understand it is improving that pier. Nevertheless we object to a subsidised company which more or less fixes its own rates, subject to some Government control which has not been exercised, owning these piers. Notwithstanding the power of controlling these freights they are still exorbitant.

Mr. Macquisten: They brought them down 15 per cent.

Mr. MacMillan: I know, but they were exorbitant at the time and they are still far too high. Nevertheless we are prepared to accept and to be grateful for the half loaf which is better than no bread. But the bread of hope, of patience, of long-suffering, which was cast upon the waters so many years ago by the people affected has come back after many delays and proved a poor investment. I think this Measure is too halfhearted. I should like to see a national Measure on a national scale taking the whole problem into the direct responsibility of a Minister instead of leaving it under the multiple control of all these county councils with conflicting interests and leaving so many exceptions as in the case of the railway companies.
Another point which ought to be stressed is the necessity for the limitation and in some cases the reduction of the pier and harbour dues. One example has been given bearing upon this point but that had reference to the case of a ferry. But there is the instance of Stornoway Harbour which is one of the most progressive. It must be said that the Stornoway harbour trust has exercised its borrowing powers to the limit and is doing very good work. But if you go to Stornoway with a car you have to cross the Minch and you have to pay about £2 or £3 for having the car taken across. It is landed on the pier at


Stornoway for about two minutes but you have to pay 15s. for landing the car at the pier and on the return journey the same charges are made. Thus it costs about £6 10s. to take a car to and fro across the Minch to land it there and to pay the harbour dues. You pay about half the annual licence duty on the car.

Mr. Macquisten: Why not hire one of the local Fords?

Mr. MacMillan: I hope the Minister will exercise whatever power he possesses or will take power to have these harbour dues and similar charges substantially reduced. There is also the injustice of asking local authorities to bear the cost of the maintenance of these works in cases in which the Minister has taken compulsory powers for the maintenance of piers and harbours. A very small grant for some minor operation in connection with the pier or harbour may be given by the Government and thereafter the Minister claims that because he has invested some small amount in the work, the local authority should pay out, possibly thousands of pounds, on further repairs and maintenance. That is quite unfair. The cost of maintenance should not be borne by the local authority There are piers owned by local authorities at present which are not always in the best condition for the simple reason that the local authorities are not able to bear the necessary costs. We can imagine cases in which it is not possible to levy a high rate. One can imagine cases such as those which have been referred to previously, where a penny rate, say in the Isle of Scarpi, on the whole population would raise only about 4s. 2d. I think that was a case which was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman himself in another connection, and there are hundreds of cases throughout the Highlands and Islands in which the local authorities could not be expected on the strength of local rating to undertake new work or to maintain existing works in proper condition.
Recently the Minister of Transport introduced a Measure which is very definitely connected with this problem. The Minister talked in terms of £4,500,000 which was to be spent on a five-years plan of road-making for the Highlands and Islands. If the Minister of Transport can talk of spending £4,500,000 spread over a few years, surely the Secretary of State for Scotland can talk in terms of a few

hundreds of thousands of pounds at least for this other great purpose. Surely the Scottish Office can be as big as the Ministry of Transport when it is clearly the case that the money will be put into a proper, profitable and productive investment. May I stress this? If and when the right hon. Gentleman sees fit to make grants for these works, I hope he will see that when labour is employed by a county council there will be an end of that vicious habit which has been introduced recently of demanding, or expecting and accepting free labour by workers on public schemes. It is disgraceful that people in the Highlands and Isles should be asked to work for wages, if they can be called wages, of from 2d. to 6d. per hour. It has been the habit in some counties to expect this kind of thing, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make provision to ensure for these workers proper and reasonable wages at least such as obtain in every other part of the country.
I hope that before the Bill becomes law modification will be made along the lines suggested or possibly along lines which the right hon. Gentleman himself may deem to be more useful than those suggested here. There are modifications which could be made which would certainly not affect what he desires in the Bill but would promote the best interests of the promoters of the Bill as well. I hope that he will give particular consideration to the financial question, which is all-important. In all Highland matters that is the question which affects the problem more than any other, the question of lack of adequate assistance; and unless it is forthcoming neither this Bill nor any other Bill will be any good.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted; and 40 Members being present—

9.27 p.m.

Mr. Boothby: I cannot go the whole way with the hon. Member who has just sat down in demanding that the Government should itself take over the control and regulation of all these harbour, piers and ferries. As a matter of fact, I think the local authorities are the right authorities because in the natural order of things they must know more about local conditions than the Government, especially a Government sitting as far away from the Highlands and Islands as


Whitehall. Therefore I think that the principle of the Bill is quite right. On the other hand, I cannot go all the way with the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten), who seems to think that if you covered the whole of the north of Scotland with caravans full of English people and supplied them with free piers, petrol and whisky you would have solved all our problems in the north of Scotland.
I see that the right hon. Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) has come in and I would like to say with regard to his speech that nothing is more charming and disarming than his absolutely sincere determination that landlords should have no more rent. I say to him, the owner of many acres, as one who does not own one, that I do not grudge him a penny and only wish he made more. That applies to all the landlords, especially the smaller ones, in the North of Scotland. I agree with one point raised by my right hon. Friend. I feel that when a local authority has made a bid for a harbour or pier and then the arbitrator has assessed too high a price they should have the opportunity of withdrawing if they desire to do so. I would like to ask the Lord Advocate whether he could give us some assurance on that point.
It is a funny thing that the Government are now bringing in a whole spate of good Bills. Constructive measures follow one after the other, and I find myself in the almost embarrassing position of having to get up and support one Government Bill after another. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows as well as any one that one of the main difficulties of the herring and other fishing industries in the North of Scotland is that it is becoming almost impossible for a fisherman to make a living when he only fishes in one particular kind of fishing for six months in a year. We have to try to enable fishermen to work two different kinds of fishing for practically the whole year round, and that is where, I think, this Bill may prove to be of such tremendous value. I would like to give one example from my own constituency. There are three fishing villages—St. Combs, Cairnbulg and Inverallochy—none of them very small, all within half a mile of each other, and all of them about six or seven miles from the large herring fishing port of Fraserburgh. They con-

tain a large, virile and admirable population of fishermen. None of them can have a harbour at present, although that coast is one of the best white fishing grounds for inshore fishermen. They have to take a 'bus some six or seven miles into another town where they keep their boats, and then they have to return. The fact that they have to do this makes it more likely than not that they will throw in their lot with the herring fishing fleet and give up white fishing. Imagine the folly of this. Some years ago a harbour was started at Cairnbulg. They could keep their motor boats there for line fishing. I actually took the late Sir Godfrey Collins when he was first appointed Secretary of State for Scotland out on to the pier to look at it. Because there was no competent authority and there were no financial resources, the pier was left in a position where it allowed seaweed to silt up. It cost a good deal of money, and it is no good. That is false economy.
That seems to be the sort of case where a powerful and not unduly poor local authority like the Aberdeenshire County Council could intervene with the assistance of the Government. It is a local problem in my constituency, but I believe it to be typical of more than one place in Scotland. Sub-section (2) of Clause 7 says that where works cost less than £3,000 the Bill applies only to Argyll, Inverness, Ross and Cromarty, Sutherland, Caithness, Orkney and Zetland. I would rather like to ask the Lord Advocate why that paragraph has been put in, and if he cannot give us a satisfactory answer whether he will scratch out the proposal and apply this to the whole of Scotland, or add Aberdeenshire. I personally do not mind which course he adopts but I hope that he will take one or the other.
I would like to reiterate what one or two speakers have said. The problem of the distressed rural area has never been tackled in this House. The percentage of unemployment in Wick is proportionately higher than in any other town of Scotland, and the percentage of unemployment throughout the whole of Scotland, especially the Highlands, is distressingly high. It is simply because these people are so scattered and poor, and cannot do any hunger marching or engage in any other corporate activity, that they are apt to be forgotten. I see


no real method of bringing substantial relief to the poor crofter and the average inhabitant of the North of Scotland generally except by giving them an opportunity to pursue the calling of fishermen. The Government should take any step that would facilitate the pursuit of fishing, particularly of inshore, local fishing and white fishing, for it would give the men who work in the herring fleet, which is seasonal employment, a chance to make ends meet and to make a living in the off months. I believe that by that method the Minister could do more for the North of Scotland than by any other single method. These fishermen have had 10 lean years. They are poor, and the local authorities are poor, too. If we are to get real benefit out of this Bill, the machinery of which is admirable, there must be some finance applied to grease the wheels. I hope that in the tussles that lie ahead with the Treasury, my right hon. Friend will be successful.

9.37 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: My hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) gave some instances of harbours in his constituency that would benefit by this Bill, and I am sure we were impressed by them. I would like to bring a slightly different case to the notice of the Secretary of State. There is a harbour in my constituency which is one of three fairly important harbours doing herring and inshore fishing. It has been our good fortune in the last week or two to get substantial grants from the Fishery Board and the Development Commissioners for two of these harbours. The third, Pittenweem, has been unsuccessful in its claim. I do not know what considerations were in the minds of the Fishery Board when they turned down any recommendation for that port. I imagine one of the considerations was probably that Pittenweem is a much smaller harbour than others which have applied for grants. No doubt also the fact that their trade in landings is not increasing had some effect with the Board. I hope, however, that the Fishery Board and the Secretary of State are not going to take the line that because a harbour is not a large one, is not developing, or even because its trade is temporarily falling, they can just neglect it and let it become of little use. Those communities round the smallest

harbours in Scotland are of considerable importance to the nation, and I hope that the case I have mentioned may be borne in mind as one deserving of special care.
This is the kind of debate that does credit both to the Government and the Scottish Members. It is an example of unprejudiced and non-party examination of a considerable national problem, and it makes one feel how much advantage might come to Scotland if this kind of thing could be transferred more frequently to the Scottish Standing Committee. This is not an occasion to develop that thought, but it is an example of the progress that could be made by Scotsmen acting together for the good of their country. May I say, as the Member for East Fife, how much pleasure I had in seeing the Under-Secretary of State, who comes from my constituency, make his maiden speech as Minister. His promotion gave us great satisfaction in Fife and we look forward with close interest to his future work.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: No Secretary of State could complain of the response which this Second Measure has had to-day. Owing to the business-like procedure on the first Bill, we have been able to dispose of it early, and for that I have to thank both sections of the Opposition, and also the supporters of the Government who have limited themselves in a way that must at times be a great strain upon them, as it is on any Scotsman when he has a lot of other people to argue with. This Bill has, perhaps, met with a somewhat frostier reception, notably from the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan), although he, too, said that he was going to support it. He that is not against us is for us, and consequently we can say that the whole House without exception is for this Bill. Let me repeat what the Under-Secretary said in introducing the Bill, that this is not a Measure which, in itself, deals with grants. It is a machinery Bill and it would not be possible to insert finance into it. We had to deal with the situation as we found it, and the first thing we want to do is to produce a workable machine.
I do not think that anyone will deny that in the great local authorities of the north we have a number of bodies which,


I think, do not entirely merit the accusations brought against them by the hon. Member for the Western Isles. My hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) spoke very cogently on the subject when he said that these bodies were the proper bodies to administer these local works. They have the greater knowledge and they know the conditions far better than any Whitehall or even Edinburgh administration can possibly do. I am not at all sure that, even supposing I had been able to write on a blank piece of paper, I would have written a Bill which gave the Secretary of State the power and the responsibility of taking over even the works which it is supposed are to be taken over by the local authorities under the Bill we have before us. Still less would I have done so if the purpose had been to take over the railway ferries which are at present neglected. It seems a little odd that the hon. Member for the Western Isles should be so vehemently in favour of the central bodies in theory and against them in practice; for the great railways are exactly those large centralised organisations which he desires so emphatically in the case of the State.

Mr. M. MacMillan: There is a difference between the large private organisation and the large State organisation.

Mr. Elliot: The hon. Member has that engaging belief in the power of theory which he will not always find in practice. A great enterprise is a great enterprise, whether it is State or private, and the difficulty of getting it to listen to you is about the same in either case. Let us assume, then, that the whole House is in favour of some such Measure as this— that these small marine works should be transferred in certain cases, either voluntarily or compulsorily, to larger organisations with greater financial resources, which can more easily shoulder the occasional crises which come upon them.
I think that with few exceptions the House believes that the proposals in the Bill as to the type of local authority which is to take over these marine works have been properly and appropriately chosen, that is to say, it should be the large local authority rather than the central authority. Let me go further. Many hon. Members have said that with-

out adequate finance all our efforts will be in vain. That is true, for finance is the key of a great many of these efforts. Yet before one can obtain finance from the central authority one must see some workable proposition. In these circumstances and under present conditions we have never been able to see in the north a workable proposition. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen gave a very good example of a harbour where a pier had been half built and, because there was no competent authority, work on it had ceased. That is not a proposition which you could get any Government Department to support. The Development Fund, as we knew when I was Under-Secretary of State and he was in the even more powerful position of Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was the body with whom we discussed all these things. We spent much time, elaborating arrangements for the relief of Aberdeenshire harbours and piers, but even then we were not able to put forward a business proposition on many occasions. I would deprecate the suggestion that in all these things 100 per cent, grants for maintenance and construction and subsidies to enable people to go there is an attractive proposition to the Treasury, or indeed is a sound proposition for the people of the country.
We in Scotland do not wish to neglect altogether the principle of self-help; and surely it is desirable that some local contribution should be made, that some local effort should be made. I am sure the hon. Member for the Western Isles, in the somewhat exaggerated claims that he put before the House this evening, was merely indulging in a little picturesque over-statement, because I am sure he would agree that some local effort is desirable if you have really to attract support and assistance from central funds.
If then we accept those points, that there should be such a Bill, that it should deal with marine works which are not being worked properly now, that these should be taken over locally, and that some assistance should be found from local as well as central sources, then I think we have the main principles of the Bill, and the only question is, Are the details of it reasonable and adequate? The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean), whose tribute to the new


Under-Secretary of State we all delighted in, and felt very much, coming from one of his political opponents, said that there was nothing stated in the Bill about the possible rate on local authorities. I do not think it is desirable to put that in the Bill. He also spoke of the evils of legislation by reference and pointed out that there was indeed a great deal of such legislation in this Bill. I went into this matter when the Bill was being drafted, and it was pointed out to me by the drafting authorities that in fact the Acts which were being incorporated, which are mostly in the First Schedule, were actually drawn for the purpose of being incorporated in legislation such as this, and if they were reprinted in all the hundreds of Acts to which they applied, it would be a trouble and not an assistance to those who are desirous of following out these Statutes.
I admit that I found the argument not wholly convincing, for I myself am disposed to see the whole of a Bill laid before me and not just a bit of it, with an index to other Acts of Parliament. But this legislation by reference is not here through any neglect or bad draftsmanship and is not due to any sloppy or slovenly work by the Scottish Office or by the draftsmen. It is merely that this is the common form which is used in all these Acts, and if we were to incorporate all the Acts to which reference is made in the First Schedule, we should have a Bill twice or three times as thick as this, which might raise still more false hopes than the hon. Member for the Western Isles has suggested, because the mere appearance of such a volume all about piers and harbours would make people think that the millennium had indeed come and that this flood of gold which they desired was about to descend on them in even larger quantities.

Mr. Maclean: In the very Schedule to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, there is reference to an Act passed 90 years ago. Surely he does not suggest that it was then provided in such a manner that a Bill such as we are now discussing could be incorporated in the terms of that Act of 1845?

Mr. Elliot: That is exactly what I am saying, without any reservation, that the Act of 1845 was drafted for exactly the purpose of being incorporated in Acts

such as this, and there are certainly Acts older than that of 1845 upon which the social structure of this country depends and to which reference is made in Acts every day. I wish to defend the draftsmen of the Scottish Office from the charge of having done slovenly work.

Mr. Maclean: I think the right hon. Gentleman is unfair to those of us who objected to this legislation by reference. We were not accusing the draftsmen of slovenly work, but it has been the custom of the House for the 19 or 20 years during which I have been in it to carry through legislation along these lines, and it is not slovenly work that we object to, but we are desirous of having contained in a Bill such as this the full measure of the Acts and not something which requires reference back to many other Acts.

Mr. Elliot: I do not wish to be unjust to the hon. Members, and I was referring rather to my own position as Secretary of State when I spoke about slovenly work. Naturally, we do not accuse the draftsmen of slovenly work, because what they do is done at the instance of a Minister, but to incorporate these Acts would have meant 60 or 70 pages, and I fear that in that enormous nutshell the relatively small kernel might be lost sight of altogether.
The right hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) spoke again of the desirability of not paying excessive compensation. I tried to make the position clear, but I do not appear entirely to have done so. The position is that there is no enhanced value given by this Bill, when it becomes an Act, to any marine work, but the value of a marine work being taken over is the market value as between a willing buyer and a willing seller, and I do not think I can go further than that, save to say that all the relevant circumstances—such as whether money had recently been spent on it, whether it was now in repair, whether there was revenue from it, whether the revenue might be expected to increase in future—will be taken into account.
Another point was raised by the hon. and learned Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten), who said that a betterment claim might be incorporated into the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Lord


Advocate and myself will give consideration to that, but I do not wish to tie down too tightly this proposal in a mesh of arguments, where far more than the value of the proposed recovery might easily be lost in lawyers' fees, arguing out the exact pounds, shillings and pence to be paid and possibly recovered later in compensation. As a final justification of this Clause, I would say that the local authorities have asked for it, and I find it impossible to believe that the local authorities would ask for a Clause which would prejudice them financially.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness made a further point, which was repeated by my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire. If, said he, the local authorities embarked upon compulsory acquisition, went to arbitration, and found that the arbitral award, though just, was so onerous that they could not contemplate carrying through the bargain, would they be permitted to withdraw from their undertaking? Not as the Bill is drafted, because a claim for compensation lodged is the beginning of a contract, which would have to be carried through; but, in view of the point put forward, both by the right hon. Member for Caithness and by my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire, the Lord Advocate and myself will look into it between now and the Report stage, and we might possibly table an Amendment to deal with that particular difficulty. I think there are precedents in land drainage and other Acts for such power, but in default of such express and explicit power of withdrawal the local authority is not able to withdraw from the final carrying through of the purchase, once having embarked on that process.
My hon. Friend the Member for Argyllshire will excuse me if I do not follow out all his arguments, more particularly as he is not in the House at the moment, and even more, really, because they raise so many fascinating questions, such as the reason for the heavy tax on distillation, and the process by which the delightful habit of home manufacture of alcohol was crushed out in the Highlands. He will excuse me if I do not go into this at any length. The Bill deals more with water than with whisky,

a more prosaic and, indeed, more plentiful element. That brings me to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire. I think I have already dealt more or less with the speech of the hon. Member for the Western Isles, whose criticism I do not in any way resent. It is, indeed, the proper process of hammering out opinion on the Floor of the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire reiterated the point as to the great desirability of avoiding rural distressed areas by, if possible, allowing fishermen the right to fish both in summer and in winter, and the necessity of providing harbours and other facilities for that purpose. I am sure all of us would agree with any development of the Highlands. As I said in my speech on the Motion brought forward from the other side, the old traditional industries of agriculture and fishing must be the backbone of any such development. We must be prepared to put up with a good deal in order to maintain those industries, or to revive them if they have fallen into decay, and I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House will remember that when we come before them with proposals for, it may be, a subsidy upon home-bred cattle or, it may be, restrictions on the quota of foreign landings of fish. They cannot have it both ways. If we are to develop at home we must be prepared to put up with a certain amount of economic inconvenience, and I am sure that hon. and right hon. Members in all parts of the House who have so eloquently urged the claims of the Highlands and Islands will support us with equal vigour when we come before them with other proposals for the maintenance of fishing and agriculture, which are the two great pillars on which Highland life must stand.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) (AMENDMENT) BILL.

Considered in Committee and reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time upon Monday next.

SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES), 1936.

CLASS V.

GRANTS TO PUBLIC ASSISTANCE AUTHORITIES (ENGLAND AND WALES).

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £3,800,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for Grants to Public Assistance Authorities in England and Wales.

GRANTS TO PUBLIC ASSISTANCE AUTHORITIES (SCOTLAND).

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £1,494,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for Grants to Public Assistance Authorities in Scotland.

Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

WAYS AND MEANS.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Resolved,
That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, the sum of £5,294,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."— [Captain Margesson.]

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

INDIA AND BURMA (EXISTING LAWS) BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

EAST INDIA (LOANS).

Resolution reported,
That it is expedient—

(a) to authorise the Secretary of State to borrow in sterling on behalf of the Governor-General of India in Council by the issue of securities charged on Indian revenues, so however that the nominal amount outstand-

ing of the securities so issued and the securities issued under former enactments relating to sterling borrowings by the Secretary of State in Council of India shall not at any time exceed three hundred and twenty million pounds;
(b) to repeal and reproduce with modifications and adaptations enactments relating to certain financial obligations of the Secretary of State in Council (including obligations with respect to sinking funds), and otherwise to amend the law in relation to certain of those obligations, and to make other provision for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid;
(c) to make provision for the payment out of Indian revenues of the expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under this Resolution or otherwise in relation to India stock."

Resolution agreed to.

Bill o0dered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by Mr. Butler, the Solicitor-General and Lieut.-Colonel Colville.

EAST INDIA LOANS BILL,

"to authorise the Secretary of State to borrow in sterling on behalf of the Governor-General of India in Council during the period with respect to which Part XIII of the Government of India Act, 1935, applies; to repeal and reproduce with modifications and adaptations enactments relating to certain financial obligations of the Secretary of State in Council of India, and otherwise to amend the law in relation to certain of those obligations; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid"; presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 69.]

KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS (HOUSE OF COMMONS).

Ordered,
That Mr. R. c. Morrison be added to the Select Committee on Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms (House of Commons)."—[Sir G. Penny.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Eight Minutes after Ten o'Clock.